Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:56, 22 November 2008

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Prem Rawat. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Prem Rawat at the Reference desk.

Prem Rawat and related articles, including their talk pages, are subject to article probation. Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivilty.

	Prem Rawat was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 25, 2006 Peer review Reviewed November 14, 2006 Peer review Reviewed March 11, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

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

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

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

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

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

• This talk page contains numerous non-archive subpages involving past disagreements, including: /Bio, /Bio proposal, /Bio proposal/talk, /Bio proposal nr2, /Bio proposal nr2/talk, /Comments, /GA Review March 07, /GA review 1, /Teachings, /Teachings (draft), /criticism, /lead, /temp1
• Sources: /scholars, /journalists, /WIGMJ, /First person accounts, /Lifestyle, /Bibliography
• Reference quotations removed from inline cites: /References
• Related talk of a merged page: Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat (and archives of that talk page: Archive 14 • Archive 13 • Archive 12 •Archive 11 • Archive 10 •Archive 9 • Archive 8 • Archive 7 • Archive 6 • Archive 5 • Archive 4 • Archive 3 • Archive 2 • Archive 1)

Archives

Archive index June 2004 – July 2004 July 2004 – July 2004 (1) July 2004 – July 2004 (2) July 2004 – August 2004 August 2004 – August 2004 (1) August 2004 – August 2004 (2) September 2004 – September 2004 (1) September 2004 – September 2004 (2) September 2004 – September 2004 (3) October 2004 – October 2004 October 2004 – April 2005 June 2005 – August 2005 August 2005 – October 2005 October 2005 – February 2006 February 2006 – March 2006 March 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – May 2006 May 2006 – July 2006 – September 2006 September 2006 – November 2006 November 2006 – January 2007 January 2007 – March 2007 March 2007 – May 2007 May 2007 – July 2007 July 2007 – October 2007 October 2007 — December 2007 December 2007 — February 2008 February 2008 February 2008 (2) February 2008 - March 2008 March 2008 (Archive 33) (Archive 34) (Archive 35) (Archive 36) (Archive 37) (Archive 38) (Archive 39) (Archive 40)

Free of charge

If we're going to cite sources saying that the initiation is free of charge then we also need to include the sources that say initiates are expected to pay for having received the Knowledge. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Which sources? The techniques have been always offered free of charge. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

We have several sources that say initiates were told they were in Maharaj Ji's debt for the rest of their lives. Here's a variation on the theme:

• The Knowledge session began about noon with an examination of each of the potential premies. Do you really believe Guru Maharaj Ji is the Lord? Do you really want to serve Him and Him alone? Do you have any other gurus? One young man made the mistake of saying that he wanted to receive Knowledge even though he was still a follower of Jesus. "Then get Jesus to give you Knowledge," retorted the mahatma. Asked why she wanted to receive Knowledge, one girl replied innocently enough that she wanted to find God. She was rejected along with nearly half of the others. After a lunch break we settled into the serious business of making contact with the primordial vibrations of the universe. We were instructed to sit up straight, keep our eyes on the mahatma and answer all his questions in loud, clear voices. The first step was for everyone to take all the money out of his pockets, present it at the foot of the altar and express eternal gratitude and devotion to Guru Maharaj Ji. "If all you have is a check, sign it so that it can be cashed," instructed the mahatma. One boy was found to be holding out enough for his bus fare home. "What if Guru Maharaj Ji doesn't want you to go home?" asked the mahatma. He told us to meditate sever hours a day, covering the head for the divine light pa and told us that the first time we saw Guru Maharaj in person we should turn our right ear to him so that he might "blow you a puff of grace." He gave us greeting to be used in addressing other premies an passed out pieces of paper with his name and address. "Send your worldly possessions here," he said. "Do you love Guru Maharaj Ji, or do you love your money?"

• Rawson, Jonathon (November 17, 1973), "God in Houston: The Cult of Guru Maharaji Ji", The New Republic, p. 17

That doesn't seem consistent with being free. I'm not saying we shouldn't report the claim that it's free, I'm just saying that if we do we also need to report on the actual reality. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do not know where that reported got that, but the "actual reality" is that techniques are free of charge and have always been free. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The citation information is there. It's not alone - I've seen at least one other source that says a follower was told after the "free" initiation that he was now in debt to Guru Maharaj Ji. We can report both the claims of it being free and the reports of demands of money. Or we can leave them both out. But it wouldn't be NPOV to include only half of the story. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

We're talking about official policy not what one Indian mahatma said. Momento (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. We might phrase it something like, Officially, there is no charge for receiving Knowledge, but initiates have reported demands for payment. Let me dig up the other source and then we can decide on the exact wording. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Not "payment". There has been, and still is, always a demand for money, and money has never been scorned. But Prem Rawat has sysytematically made it clear that money has nothing to do with the initiation and the practice of Knowledge, and the issue of raising money has been very distinctly and sensibly been seperated from the core issue of spreading Knowledge. In the very early Indian mahatma days of DLM the leading staff obviously was not aware of the touchiness of western society concerning monetary issues, but even then it was clear for every interested person that there was no such thing as payment. Rawat has repeatedly publicly stressed that he personally resisted tendencies in DLM to charge money for the initiation, and he made sure that lack of money never was an obstacle for receiving Knowledge. Otherwise propagation could hardly have been successful in Africa, India, South America. And even in the rich countries a person without money has in no way been discriminated or barred from participating at events. This has been policy for several decades now, and is in fact quite remarkable. There has never been a pretense that money is worthless, when everybody knows it is not. But there was cleary never a sense of payment. Hard to understand for tabloid minds.--Rainer P. (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the advantage of personal experience in this field. I only know what I read. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'm just trying to help with understanding, can't hurt.--Rainer P. (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that while Rainer's remarks are quite true from my experience, I think he is using the word "demand" in the economic sense, to mean a "need," not the more common sense to mean an insistence on payment. Rumiton (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Rumiton. The German word in my mind was "Bedarf". I was not aware of the ambiguity of "demand".--Rainer P. (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, what happened in early DLM times, mentioned 30 years later, gives a false impression. What is important is what the general policy has been in the last decades and specially now on the "payment"/donation subject. There may have been some mahatmas in early times that did or said wrong things, at a time when control was rather by Prem's mother, and some mahatmas perhaps brought wrong habits from India. You probably know that Prem has dismissed mahatmas due to wrong behavior, and I am not even sure if some mahatmas were "inherited" from his father's times. Was it easy for a 12 or 13 year old boy to control all that?

The master is responsible for policies and guidelines, but is it right to blame the master for each action of each mahatma, initiator or follower? One of the ex-premies of the early organization wanted to charge a fee for receiving Knowledge, which of course Prem rejected. He was later dismissed from the organization and decades later still has a website dedicated mainly to denigrate and ridicule Prem's early times. If Prem complied with his view, no university would accept Prem. Please do not ask me names, I have found this information in internet and you may find it too.

Is it not logical to bring a present to a Satguru at initiation? It would be extremely ungrateful that a present is given to friends and family every birthday, and to the person who gives you the most precious gift, not only of this lifetime, but of all your dozens or hundreds of lifetimes, which is the possibility of liberation from the long imprisonment of the soul in the bodily prison and limitations, you would not give anything.

You may call it payment or you may call it gift, according to your perception. In my case, in 1974, in London, where I went from the Canary Islands, I was told in Spain to bring a gift, not money, so I gave the gift I had brought, gold-engraved hand-cuffs and a neck-tie pin, which the Mahatma returned to me, they were useless for him or Maharaji (though they could have sold them) as they used oriental clothes, no tie (imagine my ignorance of oriental things at the time, like most western people).

The mahatma accepted what we had brought (aprox. 15 people for iniciation in the room), some brought gifts, some money and some nothing, and did not check who brought something and who did not, nobody was refused initiation for that (or any other reason in my case), nor have I ever heard of anyone not initiated for lack of gifts or money, nor refused to attend an event for the same reason. I have been attending events for years without doing any regular donation or contribution at all, (apart from the entrance fee to pay the event expenses), nobody ever asked me at the door if I was contributing with anything or not.

Is it right to bring negative anecdotes from 30 years ago as part of Prem's biography? That is not the story of Prem's life, which does not include all his followers experiences, nor a description of his message, which is the most important thing, but is almost buried under the negative opinions of "experts" (in many different fields that have little to do with yoga, which is the origin of Prem's teachings) and negative anecdotes. Sorry to say, Prem's biography is a disaster.--Pedrero (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

How much are the entrance fees? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

My highlights . ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The cost of producing the Keys is covered by the contributions of people who support Maharaji's efforts to make his message widely available. The preparation process and the session where the techniques are taught are free of charge. Knowledge is a gift from Maharaji. The Keys are distributed around the world by various nonprofit organizations, formal and informal, staffed mainly by volunteers. The Keys are not sold, and neither Maharaji nor the organizations supporting his work receive a financial benefit from their distribution. There is no charge for the Keys or the preparation process. In some areas, a shipping and handling fee and a deposit may apply.

This event is supported by contributions. $90 per person is the average amount needed to cover the anticipated costs. Each person is invited to contribute according to his or her ability. Our combined generosity will make this event successful.

Perhaps it would be better to say something like, "contributions are requested but not required." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Any other thoughts? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No other thought than that Knowledge has always been free of charge.Momento (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

So Knowledge is free, but there's a fee for attending the meeting where Knowledge is given? (Waived for those who show financial need?) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Might I try figuring this all out? The lessons are free, though it is expected that donations will be made. Now, are the donations like the Mormon Church, where some set percentage is expected? Like the Protestant tradition of a "weekly offering"? Like the (all too common) Jewish practice of an annual fee for the High Holidays? The televangelist model of "send us all you can spare"? Which model comes closest to the Prem Rawat model? Thanks! Collect (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Everything has always been free - attending the meetings and learning the techniques. In the 70s "Indian" days people often brought gifts like fruit, flowers or something symbolic to the Knowledge session but they were never mandatory or necessary. Some Indian mahatmas may have asked for donations in the early 70s but they were wrong to do so. As Rawat made clear in his first talks in the west "This Knowledge is for you...it has been made absolutely free for you" Westminster Hall 1971. These days receiving Knowledge involves watching the Keys videos. The Keys website says "There is no charge for the Keys videos or for the Knowledge session. The Keys are available on a loan basis. Shipping and handling charges and a deposit may apply. The costs of producing the Keys are met by the voluntary contributions of people who appreciate Maharaji's message. Knowledge is a gift from Maharaji and is offered free of charge".Momento (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Might I get a more realistic answer? Running the organization costs money. What is the mode of raising money? Does it meet any model above? If not, what is the fundraising model? What are the levels of "voluntary contributions" for example? Are they given weekly? Annually? Randomly? And further lessons beyond the Keys? Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Here you go: There is no tithe or other similar types of requests; people donate as they do to any other non-profit organizations. You may read http://tprf.org/tprf/annual_report.htm which may clarify this for you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Am I correct that the average donation for the Foundation is about $750 per annum from the 2,000 donors? Is money donated to other entities as well, or is the Foundation the primary recipient of gifts? Collect (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

So there's no entrance fee to any of Rawat's talk? No charge to attend festivals? That's not what our sources say. One, I'd have to go check, says that the number of festivals were increased in order to raise more money, and that followers were pressured to attend. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

If the question is "does Rawat charge for Knowledge or speaking engagements?" then Rawat is the obvious one to answer that question and he says he doesn't. I'm sure you can find a source that says he charges but as we know even the most reliable sources can get it wrong and some of the sources we've used get it wrong often.Momento (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• In the 1970s DLM encouraged premies to tithe their incomes and many premies did indeed tithe their incomes in the U.S. The ashrams, of course, tithed its combined income to Prem Rawat and gave another 10% on top of that to DLM. It's ridiculous to say "everything is free of charge." Donations are requested constantly and Elan Vital and TPRF goe out of their way to ask for donations all of the time, including how a premie can make EV or Prem Rawat, the beneficiary of a premie's life insurance policies and their estates upon their deaths. The Gulfstream V jet Rawat uses exclusively isn't paid for by Prem Rawat, so someone is paying for it. And he didn't get wealthy by working. The carrot on the stick in this NRM is that "everything is free." And, of course, no one has to pay to enter a Knowledge Session to get the meditation techniques nor do they pay to watch the 70+ hours of dvds (except for postage and handling) that's required for a newcomer to "prepare" themselves to be considered able to enter that Knowledge Session. Nor do newcomers pay for the facilities that they go to when they "receive" the Knowledge techniques, but somebody is paying for all of those things: those facilities, dvd production, the cost of live programs around the world, Rawat's travel expenses, including the the jet fuel and upkeep and maintenance of the jet, which runs around $300K to $400K per month, etc., etc. Now, whether there are sources that state all of the above is another question, but for anyone to say that no one has to pay anything, is absurd. Gimme a break, "free of charge."  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any cite for such a jet having such high maintenance charges? Jossi pointed me to the Foundation financial report, but any further cited info would help a lot! Collect (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Any comments in this section are addressing the issue brought up in the opening comment which was "If we're going to cite sources saying that the initiation is free of charge then we also need to include the sources that say initiates are expected to pay for having received the Knowledge. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC) And as you, SylvieCyn confirm "of course, no one has to pay to enter a Knowledge Session to get the meditation techniques nor do they pay to watch the 70+ hours of dvds (except for postage and handling) that's required for a newcomer to "prepare" themselves to be considered able to enter that Knowledge Session. Nor do newcomers pay for the facilities that they go to when they "receive" the Knowledge techniques", So yes, "Everything (regarding receiving Knowledge) has always been free - attending the meetings and learning the techniques". But many people support making this gift available to others and contribute time and money to do so. Just like people support the Red Cross that is a multi million dollar enterprise with cars and planes and buildings and paid staff. No one makes them, they want to help.Momento (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Your comparison of anything Rawat-related to The Red Cross is specious, misleading, and false. It's tantamount to Jossi's comparison of "Millennium '73" to the bombing of Pearl Harbor which was a grandiose comparison. Elan Vital, The Prem Rawat Foundation, and Prem Rawat are in no way "like" the Red Cross. You're misleading people by saying that, you know you're misleading people, and you ought to stop doing it. The fact is that the Red Cross isn't an NRM or a cult, it doesn't keep it's fundraising secret from the public, it never conceals its fundraising efforts by keeping them private from some contributors, as in Rawat-related organization's practices of holding secret meetings with wealthy, major donors.

Furthermore, The Red Cross doesn't have a spiritual leader, titular or otherwise, therefore it never holds private programs on private "charity" held land where darshan lines are conducted so Red Cross contributors can line up to kiss the feet of its spiritual Master, while handing over envelopes filled with undocumented cash. The Red Cross doesn't conduct secret initiation sessions for people, like Elan Vital does (which the Knowledge sessions surely are), there are no requireiments of members or donors to make promises to keep secrets in the Red Cross, as Elan Vital and Prem Rawat asks of its initiates, and there are no requirements when one contributes to the Red Cross, that donors devote themselves to an individual Avatar, Messiah-figure, as Prem Rawat surely is. So please stop talking to people here as if they are morons, Momento. Divine Light Mission/Elan Vital and TPRF don't hold a candle to any legitimate charity organizations that have decades-long legitimacy and a legitimate focus on helping people (for the sake of helping people, not enriching a leader or CEO). The fact is that anyone who becomes a follower of Prem Rawat is strongly pressured to donate money, with urgency to do so applied. And anyone who denies that fact is a baldfaced liar. Sylviecyn (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I fear this sort of message is getting far afield of the purpose of a talk page. This is a biography of a living person. The article has many faults, to be sure, and needs much work, but argumentation is not going to help much. I know religion and politics always arouse strong feelings, but can we possibly remove feelings from this article so that it fairly represents Rawat's life? That is why I wanted to know precisely the model for financing (which I am still not sure about) and the like. Calling people liar or the like, by the way, rarely makes them disposed to reach compromise in the goal of improving the article. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right. But you know what? I've had it with Misplaced Pages's idiotic rules and guidelines when they are rewritten to promote a destructive personality cult which is what Prem Rawat is all about. I've also had it with Misplaced Pages's inability to recognize a COI when it's staring them in the eyes ...

Have you taken the time to read all of the archives of all of the Rawat articles and their talk pages? You really need to do that before you insert yourself here because this is a series of extremely contentious articles that are filled with controversy and a helluva lot of craziness courtesy of the Rawat adherents. You also need to get hold of the informal Mediation pages (there are many, Will may be able to hook you up) and their associated talk pages, as well as the ARBCOM request/decision/talk pages and their many associated talk and draft pages, before you jump in here. Then there are the many requests for comments, and requests for comments on reliable sources and those associated talk pages. Five years worth. This isn't a simple bio article about a "living person" on Misplaced Pages.

I'm not trying to be rude or contrary, but the fact is that when someone makes comments like Momento and Jossi have done in the past few days about Rawat's path of practicing Knowlege being free of charge, I just refuse to stand by and let go unchallenged. Frankly, I don't care if it doesn't foster good relations with them. I wish you well and good luck, Collect, as well as happy reading and best wishes to you too. Please notice that I don't edit the main pages, even though I don't have a real COI as Jossi and Momento here do have. I restrain myself from doing that on purpose becasue I've been accused of having a COI and nefarious motives here, which are also all lies. I merely make comments when the truth is stretched to such a degree that it becomes intolerable. You really need to read up on this and get up to speed. Sylviecyn (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Let's remain calm, everybody. This is obviously a can of worms. It gets into the subject's sources of income, I suggest we go with something simple, like, "Rawat does not charge money for initiating students into Knowledge, but students are encouraged to give donations." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Still creates a misleading impression. It insinuates money does play a role in receiving and practicing Knowledge, even if only in a covert manner. Rawat goes to great lengths to systematically avoid the impression of any connotation between Knowledge and money. And people who are interested in the Knowledge are actually as a rule never even only “encouraged” to give money, not even in an indirect way. People donate, to keep it like this. If aspirants happen to be willing to donate, they probably won’t be rejected, as that would be neurotic. If they are satisfied with the experience of Knowledge and wish to contribute, that’s o.k. Of course money is always needed for keeping the activities of the organisation going. But Rawat and EV are really very sensitive about this issue, and that is in itself quite noteworthy and should not be overlooked deliberately. Rawat does not live from donations. Different statements are merely based on assumptions.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The source says "Each person is invited to contribute..." So whether we say students are encouraged to donate or are invited to donate the meaning is the same. The source makes it clear that Rawat doesn't wait for people to donate whatever sum strikes their fancy - a specific sum is suggested. I think the proposal I put forth is simple and avoids getting into detail either about the finances of EV or Prem Rawat. It's sourced directly from EV. Can you suggest better text that includes the fact that donations are invited? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

What EV says and what Rawat says are two different things. You can put it in the EV article.Momento (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In which case, most of the material related to EV does not belong here. Collect (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is about Rawat, what he did and what he said.Momento (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with moving the whole topic of Knowledge being free and donations being invited to the EV article. But we can't include just half of the matter in this article. If Rawat and EV disagree on whether to collect donations for his appearances then that's also a worthwhile topic, though I haven't seen any sources to document this supposed disagreement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The page that Will linked to relates to an official event where Rawat gave Knowledge, does it not? If so, then I don't think we can honestly say that this is nothing to do with Rawat, or with Knowledge being free. That said, I would rather have a secondary source commenting on this matter than extrapolating from this primary source. Failing that, and pending verification that this cost structure is typical at Knowledge-giving events, we could say that "participants are encouraged to contribute a specified amount to the cost of events where Knowledge is given." Jayen466 19:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayen: That event was not an event in which "Knowledge was given". It was an event to which PR was invited to speak at. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I see your point clearly. What was the nature of his speech? Collect (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c, reply to Jossi:) Ah, you're right. My reading skills were off. Not the same thing. Cheers, Jayen466 20:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Does Jossi or anyone have links to notices of events at which "Knowledge is given" that clearly indicate the events are free and that donations are neither invited nor encouraged? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is one that relates: Jayen466 21:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the tail wagging the dog. Some editors want to say that Rawat charges for Knowledge and are trying to find any source that will support their POV. But he hasn't, doesn't and won't charge for Knowledge. You're wasting your, and our, time.Momento (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer the question of whether donations are solicited. It does say:

• When you have watched Keys #1 through #5 and are clear that you would like to be taught the techniques of Knowledge, you may send a request to Maharaji. Key Six is shown during a special session in which Maharaji teaches the techniques of Knowledge via a video presentation. Such sessions take place throughout the year all over the world.... There is no charge for The Keys or the preparation.

What we're looking for is a description of one of these events that makes it clear that donations aren't invited or encouraged, as they are at personal appearances by Rawat. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No Will, what you should be looking for is a source which provides a "description of one of these events that makes it clear that donations ARE invited or encouraged" but there isn't one. PS. I'm looking for a source that says "Misplaced Pages isn't responsible for World War II. Does anyone have one?Momento (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have a link to an announcement for one of these events? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no such a thing as an "announcement" that I am aware. When you prepare via the Keys, on Key 5 you get a form to ask for Knowledge and in response you get an invitation to attend a session in your locality. See How do I ask for Knowledge?, and Is there a charge for viewing the Keys and receiving Knowledge? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

May we see what an invitation looks like? So far I haven't seen anything that would indicate this language is incorrect: "Rawat does not charge money for initiating students into Knowledge, but students are encouraged to give donations." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is that you are doubting what it says in these web pages? For your information, no donations are requested for attending a Key Six session, in fact it is much simpler than you think: you get the invitation with a list of locations and dates, and you show up on that day at the time established. You even get some refreshments mid-way through the session which are provided by local volunteers, also at no charge. There is not much to it, really, and I do not know why are you and others making such a big deal of it, unless you have been reading too much into dubious sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Which sources are dubious? Can you show us one of these invitations? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Whichever sources are you using to make that assertion. Even if I can get hold of an invitation letter, how would we be able to use it in WP? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is quite surreal. Jossi, Momento, Rumiton, and every other follower of Rawat who is/was on their local/national communities' mailing list knows that there has been a constant stream of requests for donations from Elan Vital/Divine Light Mission/TPRF. There was a time when Rawat's personal address was publicised at official Elan Vital events for people to send him donations. It is one thing for Jossi, Momento, et al to argue that there are no usable sources for these facts, but for them to claim that such requests for money have not been a constant part of Rawat's movement brings their good faith into serious question. --John Brauns (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, we have New Republic quoting mahatma telling initiates to empty their wallets (see above). We have Richardson talking about the financing of new religions:

• Messer (1976) goes into some detail about DLM finances, and her findings are substantiated by Pilarzyk (1978a) and Stoner and Parke (1977). Messer notes that the DLM receives many large donations from members and outsiders, but most funding comes from more regular smaller donations by communal members who work outside the ashrams (communes) or who live noncommunally and work at outside jobs of one type or another. Funds are also received from service-like businesses (such as janitorial services) operated by individual ashrams, but these usually are not large moneymakers. The only public solicitation used by the DLM seems to be asking merchants or other people for old possessions to sell in rummage sales and small secondhand stores. A DLM former member in the Netherlands claimed that the group there gathered and sold over five hundred thousand dollars worth of such goods in their most fruitful year.5 A high-level decision was made by DLM leadership in America several years ago to sponsor more festivals, because the festivals, which are major ritual events for members of the DLM, are money-making events. The participants, most of whom are members, must pay sizeable amounts of money (fifty to one hundred dollars) to participate, and sometimes the festivals attract thousands of followers. Also, the devotees in festivals take part in the ritual of darshan, which involves offering goods or money during the time of the festival when they receive a personal blessing from the guru. Large offerings are sometimes received, which adds to the financial attractiveness of the festivals.

Are these dubious sources? As for the invitation, it might help clear this up. So far we have notices saying that students are invited to donate, which is what I'm suggesting we add to the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The first source is from 35 years ago, and refers to a "mahatma" and not to PR, and the Messer source is from 32 years ago, which does not refer to the subject at hand. So, may you consider that things have evolved since the crazy 70's? As for the letter, I have seen such letters and as I said, it simply states the location, date and time for the session, and there are no requests or other type of solicitations. Maybe this is way too honorable for the perspective you have developed on the subject, but it is that plain and simple: there is no requests for donations, solicitations or any other such actions as it pertains to preparing for Knowledge and receiving it. It s a gift, as stated in the official Website. So, why don't you use the source that says just that? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Not dubious, but quite old. From what I read, the Knowledge session today is a DVD presentation, and it's free, just like the other Keys. In the session, people are asked to keep in touch, i.e. to attend events where Maharaji speaks: at those, as we've seen, they are asked to contribute, if they can, to the cost of the event. I don't see anything particularly suspicious in that. Zillions of churches ask for similar, sometimes greater commitments. Some premies get together and fund outreach efforts to make equipment available so that Key Six presentations can happen in less well-off countries. Again, that's a humanitarian effort if you believe in what you're doing, so the comparison to the Red Cross is not entirely misplaced. If you're an ideologically opposed outsider, you'd call it a missionary effort. But again, many religions engage in those. At least, here people are given a tool to work with themselves, while other missionaries may tell you that you are saved simply by converting (or may tell you that you will burn in some kind of hell if you don't convert). Just musing. I think we should abandon this OR effort. Jayen466 00:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. See:

Is there a requirement to join something or contribute financially? No, there is nothing to join and no obligation to contribute financially either during the preparation process or after a person receives these techniques. There are registration fees to attend some of the larger events, but both the fee and attendance are voluntary. Donations are sometimes requested at local events to help cover such costs as meeting room space or audiovisual equipment, but giving is always a matter of voluntary choice. Admission is never denied because of inability to contribute.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Many sources for this article are old because the article deals with someone who has been around for decades. If this article was title "Prem Rawat since 2001" then we wouldn't need to use any of them. His mahatmas may have demanded money in the 1970s and no longer demanded money in the 1980s. Fine, we can say that if we have sources for it. If we're going to include the assertion that there is no charge for Knowledge then we also need to mention that sources dispute that assertion. Otherwise we'd give readers with a one-sided view of the matter, and that would violate NPOV. Anyway, the assertion has been removed from the article. Unless someone wants to add it back I'm happy to drop this. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no "one-side view of the matter, if we simply attribute the assertion to the sources, as we have done with other material. The fact was and remains that Knowledge has always been given free of charge, even at the time of Swarupanand or even before that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Tell that to Rawson, who was told to take all of the money out of his pockets and place it before the photo of the subject, and who was asked "Do you love Guru Maharaj Ji, or do you love your money?" Clearly, initiates have been asked for money. Again, I think we should just leave out this disputed matter unless we want to give a full discussion of it that includes all significant points of view. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Is that a "significant point of view"? I doubt it, and even if you can make a case for being significant which I seriouls doubt, in reading that piece one can see what Rawson's intention was. Unless you are unable to see that, in which case there is no much more to dicuss here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If no one is planning to add back the assertion then there's nothing further to discus. If an editor intends to do that then we need to resolve this. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's back.Momento (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought some one might have removed the section "taught free of charge" but I was amazed to see the whole section was removed. What is a guru without a teaching?Momento (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the subject still a guru? Anyway, since the "free of charge" assertion is back I'll add the "donations are encouraged" view as well. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If Rawat says Knowledge is free, it should be in this article. And if he has asked for donations, it should be in too. But whatever mahatma, premie or organization has said should be in their article, not this. Simple.Momento (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If we didn't mention anything about the subject's following, that might make sense. But the subject does have followers who are reportedly asked to donate money. The mere fact that those requests come from people beside the subject doesn't that money isn't being requested. If I go to a concert it isn't the performer who collects the money: it's the fellow at the ticket counter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If the performer says it's a free concert and thousands of people get in for free but some one says you need to buy a ticket, you cannot say the performer is asking for money or that money is being asked for on his behalf. Fakiranand attacked Halley despite Rawat saying "I don't want him arrested or harmed". We have a premie saying "Venusians are coming to Millennium", and we don't say Rawat made the claim. This article is about what Rawat did and said, not any one or two of his millions of followers.Momento (talk) 03:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Will, do not keep adding non Rawat material to this article.Momento (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The things that are said by Rawat's senior aids on his behalf, by the TPRF, are indeed relevant. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Your assumption that they are said on his behalf is OR. But just so you know "There is no commitment expected of those not living in the ashram to contribute to the guru, Mishler added, although many do".(Sat, Aug. 19, 1972 GREELEY (Colo.) TRIBUNE 21)Momento (talk) 05:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I can find more sources. Please stop reverting this, or just leave it out entirely. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Just one source of Rawat saying "Knowledge is free but I encourage you to donate" will do. Here's the first half, Rawat says "Knowledge has been made absolutely free for you" WIGM p229. Now you provide the quote that says "but I encourage you to give donations (for it).Momento (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Please provide another source for "Knowledge has been made absolutely free for you": WIGM can only be used for non-controversial statements in this context; the assertion of Knowledge being free is controversial: third-party journalists tell a different story.

The same goes for thekeys.maharaji.net, a promotional website, currently used as a reference for the "free of charge" material in the intro of the Rawat article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing controversial about it. And WIGM is independently published and a reliable source for anything.Momento (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying that a 1973 book is acceptable but a 1973 magazine is too old? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Will. Be careful.Momento (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it was Jayen who discussed old sources. So I gather you don't agree with his point. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources

• In the first years of the twentieth-first century, Prem Rawat once again began a process of deconstruction, dismantling the overhierarchical structures of the organisation, leaving it toothless except as a vehicle for dealing with official bodies such as hiring of halls, legal frameworks, health and safety issues, rights of volunteers, and the financial management of donations to support the promotion of the teachings.
  • Geaves, (2006) Globalisation, charisma, innovation, and tradition:

• Elan Vital was organized, wherever possible, as an educational charity or trust responsible for promoting Maharaji's teachings. Its main activity was the dissemination of Maharaji's message through the organization of various types of events, including national and international venues where Maharaji spoke in person, and smaller, local venues where his discourses were presented by video. It was also involved in sustaining the necessary financial base through donations to make these activities possible.
  • Geaves, 2004

• It is not clear whether it is possible to receive Knowledge from anyone other than Maharaji. He claims only to encourage people to 'experience the present reality of life now. Leaving his more ascetic life behind him, he does not personally eschew material possessions. Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers. However, deliberately keeping a low profile has meant that the movement has generally managed to escape the gaze of publicity that surrounds other NRMs.
  • Hunt, 2003

• Therefore, an attempt was made to broaden financial support in the U.S. through the formation and coordination of Divine Information Centers (DIC) and the institution of a movement-wide plea to all members for donations. The donational "decree" subsequently became reinterpreted by the hierarchy as a "regular contribution" from all premies on a weekly or monthly basis. These new sources of financial support were expected to guarantee an increased effectiveness of planning for the organization, including a trend toward computerized finances.
  • Pilarzyk, 1978

• As devotees moved out of ashrams, their weekly paychecks, previously turned over to the guru's treasury, were missed. Donations fell from more than $100,000 a month to 70 per cent of that, although Anctil said 3,000 regular donors remain.
  • Espo, David (November 26,1976), "Followers Fewer, Church Retrenching for Maharaj Ji", The Charleston Gazette: 8C

• Even Guru Ma ha raj Ji, 17, Perfect Master of the Divine Light Mission and well-known lover of sports cars, cabin cruisers and good living, may soon face some economic problems. At least he will if a British Columbia court believes Michael Garson, 35, the guru's former financial analyst. Garson claims that the mission has been more than $240,000 in debt for over a year and its donations declining. He 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."
  • TIME, Apr. 07, 1975

• In theory, all funds on which the Mission runs are donations, which come from a number of sources:
• 2. All devotees are encouraged and nagged to donate funds of their own. They are also encouraged, on rare occasion, to solicit funds from nonmembers. Some devotees have signed pledges to donate a dollar a day to provide the Mission with some reliable income.
• 3. Premie Centers turn over 30 percent of their household income to the Mission. This provides the Mission with a regular income, the ugh centers are not yet numerous.
• 4. Periodic crises require fund raising across the country. To pay the debts remaining from the Houston event, devotees all over the country turned over their own possessions to Divine Sales, which had crash garage sales, attended flea markets, and invented numerous activities to dispose of the goods.
  • Messer, 1974

Discussion

Excellent sources Will. But none have Rawat saying "Knowledge is free but I encourage you to make donations". Everybody knows devotees contributed to support the Mission and spread the teachings, you can put these in the DLM EV articles.Momento (talk) 07:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This article discusses followers. Should we move that entire discussion to the DLM/EV articles too? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You need to understand the difference between what Rawat says and what others say. And the difference between providing information and Knowledge free to new people and the supporting and funding of those activities by people who already have Knowledge and want to see it spread. Perhaps a less taxing example will help. A man provides free food for people made homeless after a disaster. After a while some of the people who received the free food recognise its value and start working with the man to spread the free food system. As a result of their efforts more free food is made available. The food is always free for those who need it but the energy and money needed to expand it is donated by those who see the value of it. You cannot say the food isn't free just because some of the people who received it contribute to the service, voluntarily at a later date.Momento (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't find this matter taxing, though it's kind of you to be concerned. Regarding your first point, the subject was head of an organization. No one here disputes that. No one has presented any sources saying that the subject didn't want his followers nagged to make donations, or that he discouraged his mahatmas from demanding money before initiations, or that he didn't want his followers to buy him new jet planes, or to pay for the planes' operating expenses. If you have those sources please provide them. From what I've read, a closer analogy would be to a restaurant offering free food, but after the meal diners are told they are now indebted to the chef for the rest of their lives. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

So much OR. And now you're turning Wiki policy on its head. No longer do we have to supply sources to verify claims, we have to find sources to dispute unverified claims. And you still can't tell the difference between offering Knowledge for free and people donating money so that it can be offered for free. As for our restaurant, we have 10s of 1000s fed for free and one mahatma saying "now your indebted to the chef for the rest of their lives". No wonder Rawat sent them all packing.Momento (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What claim is unverified? That followers were asked for donations by the people in Rawat's organizations? See above - that assertion is indeed verifiable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Is everyone happy with the version as it stands now? We have: "According to publications by Rawat's organizations he does not charge money for initiating students into Knowledge. Students are however encouraged to give donations."
• I thought we could use Jossi's primary source making reference to optional registration fees at speaking events, and voluntary donations being invited at other times, but if everyone is happy as is I can live with that too. Jayen466 15:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the second unverified claim that "According to publications by Rawat's organizations he does not charge money for initiating students into Knowledge. Students are however encouraged to give donations." Since the "encourager" is not separately identified and the article is about Rawat the structure suggests that the person who (Rawat) does not charge money for initiating students into Knowledge" is the same person who does "however encourage (students) to give donations". The sources supplied have the organizations not Rawat encouraging people to give donations. I have therefore made it clear that Rawat does not charge but the organizations are supported by volunteers and donations.Momento (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

How about, ""According to publications by Rawat's organizations he does not charge money for initiating students into Knowledge, though the organizations encourage students to give donations." That indicates who is doing the encouraging. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's fine as is. We don't need to qualify who says what Rawat does. And it is sufficient to say how the organizations operate which includes volunteers.Momento (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, then how's this, "Rawat says he does not charge money for initiating students into Knowledge, though his organizations encourage students to give donations."? That eliminates the unnecessary attribution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The current version, which Momento just wrote, says he doesn't charge for talk, which is misleading since an expected donation. And "organizations that support his work" is unnecessarily elliptical. We can just call them "his organizations". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't misleading. He doesn't charge and he doesn't expect a donation. The organizations may suggest a donation from people who have Knowledge to cover the cost of an event but non members are not asked for a donation. And they aren't "his" organizations they're "organizations that support his work".Momento (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The source doesn't say that only initiated followers are asked for donations. "This event is supported by contributions. $90 per person is the average amount needed to cover the anticipated costs. Each person is invited to contribute according to his or her ability." I'm not quite sure why you say they aren't "his organizations". We say that he founded the TPRF. Is that incorrect? Is he not the spiritual leader of the EV? I believe it says so on the articles of incorporation, IIRC. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've edited it to read, "Rawat does not charge for initiating students into Knowledge. His organizations solicit donations from students to support his work." The line about not charging for talks is misleading since donations are requested, and saying his organizations are supported by volunteers implies that it is a volunteer organization without paid staff. I'm not sure what the source is for volunteers anyway. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You're too U.S. centric Will. There are dozens of organizations around the world who spread Rawat's message which have no legal or organizational links to Rawat and are run entirely by volunteers. But rather than find sources I'm changing the second sentence to mirror the lead "Organizations that assist in spreading his message are supported by donations".Momento (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I only know what I read. I haven't read anything about these all-volunteer organizations. You left off the "solicited from students" part, which is sourced. I've added it back. In its current form, I think this is acceptable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Press

Why the material about how PR was termed in the press is being reverted? The manners in which the press referred to PR can and should be placed on the Reception > Media section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"reception topics with a limited time fork can usually go in the biographical account" :

• "cult leader" has a time fork of 25 years — earliest reference used in the article: Larson 1982; latest: Mendick 2007.
• "playful and pontifical" has a single reference, pre-"Millenium '73", so can easily go in the "Leaving India" section of the biography (that is, unless someone can indicate other occurences of the same characterisation belonging to other time periods of the subject's biography - as far as I'm acquainted with the sources there is none)
• "messenger of peace" has a single reference, 2000s, so can easily go in that section of the biography (that is, unless someone can indicate other occurences of the same characterisation belonging to other time periods of the subject's biography - as far as I'm acquainted with the sources this characterisation indeed only turned up in the 2000s, as far as third-party sources are concerned).

So, please provide more sources, if available, if these last two are to be used as general "reception" topics, otherwise I'm afraid these characterisations fall short of the undue weight policy as far as the reception section is concerned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That arguments seems quite random, and I disagree with the segregation. If we have a media section, the way that PR was termed in the media (not in Larson's who has a very specific bias and is not the media) can and should be compiled into one sentence and placed in Reception > Media were it belongs. 22:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - we should include as much material in the chronology as possible. We don't segregate material from other sources, such as official DLM sources or scholars, but we include those in the biography as they best fit. The sections at the end are for general assessments that don't fit into the chronology. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

So, you disagree that for "some" press references to PR is OK to segregate to the chronology, but for or other press is better to have in the Reception section? What is the rationale for that distinction, and what goes where? It seems to me that this is either disingenuous at worst, or random at best. Care to explain?≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

In cases where we can place things into chronological order that's the best approach, and helps keep us from falling into the "crticism section" problem. Views of the subject, whether positive, negative, or neutral, should be spread across the article a appropriate and not segregated at the end. If we have a source, no matter whether from a scholar, a journalist, or whoever, on an event then that should be included in chronological order. If we have sources that makes broad generalities that can't be pegged to any particular time then those are suited to catchall sections at the end. So it's a simple principle - keep as much material in chronological order as practical. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

But that does not work for a neutral presentation of the press section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The press section seems like it should be mostly devoted to a discussion of how the press covered the subject, rather than individual reports by the press. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have consolidated these again in the press section, as there is no valid reason provided for segregating some and not doing so on others. I have also removed material that was unrelated to the press. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Reasons were given above: read. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleting sourced material simply because it's in the wrong section isn't a good way to write an encyclopedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

And this is useful? Or just an seemingly clever way to assert WP:UNDUE? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If it was deleted for being in the wrong section then a "right" section needs to be found. I'd have thought just placing it in "Reception" would have worked. Why did you delete it instead of moving it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• The first Larson's Book of Cults was published in 1982. Larson's New Book of Cults, a revised and updated version, appeared in 1989. The latest and updated edition (2004) is "Larson's Book of World Religions and Alternative Spirituality". I cannot find any mention of "cult leader" in any of these editions. Please provide page number, or delete the cite. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Page 208 of the 1982 edition. However I'm not sure we're phrasing this material the best way. While a number of sources use the exact phrase, "cult leader", far more use the words separately but with the same meaning. I think it'd be better to develop this into a short paragraph in the reception section, one that covers the perception of Rawat's organizations as cults and, if necessary, his role in those organiations. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't see it in page 282. What edition do you have? Can you provide the text? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Page 208 of the 1982 edition. (Not page 282 of the 1908 edition!) Larson writes:
        • But before any final obituaries on Guru Maharaj Ji are pronounced, it would be wise to ponder the teachings and practices that precipitated his sudden rise to power. In the seeds of his fame may be the genesis of other cult leaders having an Eastern inclination, Understanding what the DLM taught and represented may give a clue forewarning society of other personality cult figures.
      • (Always glad to help provide verification for challenged citations.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
        • It does not assert that "he was termed" as such, and in any case, he does not include this statement in the latter, actualized editions. I say we need to lose it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
          • "Actualized"? What does that mean? Anyway, the phrase "other cult leaders " clearly refers back to Guru Maharaj Ji. Note further that the material is contained in a chapter titled "Major cults". Are you disputing that Larson describes the DLM as a cult, or Rawat as its leader? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• BTW, I found this on page 205 of the same edition:
  • In the early seventies Guru Maharaj Ji commanded one of the largest and fastest-growing followings of all imported cult leaders.
• That seems pretty direct. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

This is what I had (see Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 38#New subsection for "Reception" section (proposal)):

It was rejected on grounds of OR. Can anyone do better? Please proceed! --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete the material I added? Please restore. It is highly pertinent and relevant ands gives the necessary context. Also, you do not address the WP:UNDUE concern that I raised. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You didn't explain the undue weight issue. How much weight do you think this topic is due, and why? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at the article as it stands now and tell me if adding a section for one sentence is not WP:UNDUE. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, Francis is proposing expanding it with the text presented here. You've drafted a long sentence to add as well. If the section contained a full paragraph or two would that address your concern? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No. It will not. Placing a couple of sentences as per my edit here (which was reverted by Francis), in the Reception intro section will. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask again: how much weight do you think this material is due, and why? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask again: Do you believe that a section as short as this one, or even a couple of more sentences, as added to the TOC is not WP:UNDUE? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it matters much whether this material is in a section of its own or in another section. Francis created the section because you deleted the material on account if it being in the "wrong" section. Now can you answer my question? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. See Cult leader. That explains it, in the best possible manner. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You're speaking in riddles. We have several reliable sources that refer to the subject as a "cult leader", and several dozen sources that refer to him as the head of a cult. Is it your contention that any mention of this material is undue weight? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that neither you or I can respond to that question. I have asked Jayen to weigh in, as he may be in a better position to come up with a proposal that we can live with. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If you can say something has undue weight that implies you have some idea of what due weight is. When challenged, you've declined to answer. Just adding links to Misplaced Pages policies and saying there's a violation isn't useful if you can't say what the violation is. If you want your concern to be addressed you need to explain it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course I can say what the WP:UNDUE is in this case. And in fact, I have said it now, and in previous discussions on this specific subject. I am pragmatic, and know that it would be impossible for you and I to agree on this, so that is why I have asked Jayen to weigh in who in the past has managed to provide good ideas to bridge the gap between our almost always opposing views. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

<- Claiming something is wrong without giving any evidence is just an empty complaint. Let's talk about how much weight is due to the numerous reports that the subject was the head a cult. Clearly, his (spiritual) leadership of the DLM and EV was inextricably linked to his prominence as an individual. Virtually no sources discusses him without mentioning them, and vice versa. And I don't think anyone would dispute that the DLM in particular, but also the EV, was termed a "cult" in many sources. "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. " The view that Rawat as the head of a cult is a very prominent viewpoint. NPOV requires that we give it proportionate space in the article. We mention accolades that appear in only single sources. Views that appear in dozens of sources require significantly more weight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say a brief reference in the media section mentioning the use of the label is enough, and I wouldn't even insist on that. Why? Because it's just a derogatory term, much like slut and nigger. To address the weight argument, google news alone e.g. lists almost 1500 news articles referring to Michael Jackson as "Wacko Jacko". Yet our FA on the man mentions the term once. We don't have a subsection named "Wacko Jacko", although I'm sure there are people who'd like to create one. :-) Jayen466 23:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no indication that the sources which used the term used it as a derogatory epithet to make fun of the subject. Rather, it was used as a descriptive term. A better comparison would be how many sources refer to Jackson as a "child molester", which may be negative but is also descriptive. Closer to the "Wacko Jacko" label would be things like "Boy Guru" and similar labels which were commonly used but aren't mentioned in this article (though for some reason Momento wanted to add them). Getting back to the material in this article, it appears that this is a major viewpoint, supported by numerous sources. Regarding how we should treat it in this article, it appears that the section "Charismatic leadership" appears to be used as an alternative or euphemistic term for "cult leader". Perhaps that material can be merged with the material that Francis has drafted to make a section which covers this issue fully. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I will not oppose adding a few sentences to the Charismatic leadership section. Just note that Francis piece is too close for comfort to WP:OR, so a trimming of that + the sentence I added, may work. Jayen: would you try to do it? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Since the topic is contentious, it'd be best to post a draft here so we can all review it before placing it in the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please incorporate the material into your proposal, as a starter. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

James T. Richardson, a sociologist and lawyer that studies new religious movements, and Brock Kilbourne, have argued for researchers to abandon the use of the term "cult" based on the well-documented fact that attitudes towards new religions are heavily influenced by the mass media who has presented the subject in heavily negative and mainly sensationalistic terms; while other scholars refer to activist in the anti-cult movement as not making distinctions between Guru Maharaji and others.

I looked up this reference, and it quotes Ted Patrick's book, Let Our Children Go!. We don't quote Patrick, so I'm not sure of the relevance. It appears to be a general attack on the anti-cult movement, rather than a response to the specific issues proposed for this article. Would it be appropriate to include comments on cults in general? I don't think so, and I don't this that the general view of the anti-cult movement is appropriate either. I think that at a minimum the last clause should either be omitted, or context given, by quoting Patrick directly. Let's try to stick to addressing the topic of this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the entire paragraph in the source? It is an good paragraph, cited to several authors and provides the necessary context about the "terming" and refers directly to PR. I can argue, that Larson's is not as relevant as this one.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I would argue further, that if you call Richardson's an attack on the anti-cult movement, we can easily call Larson's to be an attack on PR or others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Informally, I agree that Larson is unsympathetic to non-Christian religious movements. But we can't say he "attacks" PR unless we have a source for that. We have plenty of sources that speak generally about cults and mention DLM/EV and PR/GMJ. If we're going to include a general assessment of the anti-cult movement it may make sense to include general comments about cults. However I don't think that is a good road to go down. We already have articles on those topics. This article should remain focused on the topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This article should remain focused on the topic -- sure, but if you want to add material from Larson, as well as sensationalist papers, then it is OK to add some context. Let's wait to see if Jayen can bridge the gap with some of his brilliant prose. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Also note that the way most scholars refer to "cult" is not the same as the anti-cult or the popular media. And surely we will not go into making that point either, so we need to be cautious on how we cover this, otherwise the non-scientific, popular use will have prevalence and that will not be OK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Larson and about two dozen other sources. I dont' see how a discussion of Patrick helps provide context for Larson, or why we need to get into discussing people who have their own articles already. For Larson, simply identifying him as an evangelist or something similar would be sufficient. We have to be careful that "context" isn't "poisoning the well" with issues that aren't directly relevant. As for your last point, popular views of the subject are relevant, too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The source and the sentence is very good, and provides the necessary context and balance for the characterizations on the other sources. As I said, let's give Jayen a chance and see if he can help out with this. Good night. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to Francis' draft, and Jayen's writing ability, I don't think we're quite ready to draft text yet. Let's start by assembling our sources. Once we have those it should be reasonably easy to summarize what they say. I've started a page a Talk:Prem Rawat/cult leader where we can copy in the citations that seem appropriate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>Just want to weigh in here about the use of the word "cult." It's absolutely not the same as using "slut" and "nigger." That's a bizarre notion to promote here. I could provide scholars that do use the term and they might not be sociologists or "scholars of new religious movements" working in academic religion depts., but indeed they are still scholars. Adherents might want to label those scholars as "anti-cult movement," but that's also a pejorative label frequently espoused by adherents of NRMs, and the CESNUR scholars who support them. That subject is controversial in its own right. Plus, the use of a particular English term is not the subject of this article. If a source uses the word "cult," then it should be used in the article. It's a word in the English lexicon and is still used. It's only a perjorative from an adherent's point of view.

Btw, if using "cult" were tantamount to "slut" and "nigger," then news media would never use it and they frequently do use it. Btw, the media never use the word "nigger," to describe a black man, or "slut" to describe a prostitute, for example, but they do use "cult" to describe an NRM. I find it disturbing that Misplaced Pages tries to elminate the use of that term. I thought this was an encyclopedia, not a cultural movement. It might be helpful to the process of these Rawat articles, if Jossi stepped back considering his COI. I find it incredible that he's still forcing his pov on editors here, thereby blocking the writing process of the Rawat articles. Am I the only person noticing this disruption? The ARBCOM praised him for using restraint, I'm not seeing any such restraint here or in the Millennium '73 article. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the word cult is nearly always used pejoratively. It can in no way be considered descriptive, as suggested above. It describes nothing, just brings to mind a small group of people with anti-social beliefs and practices and probably dress code. The only exception might be particular religious scholars who have their own in-house definition of the word that isn't clear to anyone else. And prior to political correctness, English-language media were using racial and mysogonistic insults freely. They stopped because they were forced to, not because of their elevated social consciences. Misplaced Pages can and should do better. Rumiton (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Def 6 from RHD: "a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader." It is not labelled as "pejprative" in any dictionary I found. Laying aside, therefore, that objection, the issue is whether this person meets the definition of being a "charismatic leader" and whether the group is "unorthodox" with members living "outside of conventional society." WP:WTA offers this opinion: " a small religious group with novel religious beliefs and a high degree of tension with the surrounding society: in that case, it must be clear that a neutral sociological usage is intended." Thus "cult" is not a word which is "pejorative" in esse, but if you are sensitive, all thatis needed is a note that the "sociological meaning" is being used. It is not, furthermore, a "racial and (mysogynistic) insult." Collect (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the words "slut" and ";nigger" with which it was being compared. And if "considered to be false, unorthodox or extremist" is not pejorative, perhaps you will give us an example of what is? Rumiton (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I fear you miss the word "or" in the dictionary definitions. Is this group "unorthodox" by any chance? In which case, the dictionary definition appears apt. Then I pointed out the WP solution which is to use the term as a sociological term meaning " a small religious group with novel religious beliefs and a high degree of tension with the surrounding society." Does the group fit what WP avers is a sociological usage? That is -- is this group a "small religious group"? Does it have "novel religious beliefs"? Does it have "a high degree of tension with the surrounding society"? If so, and it meets the WP usage, and the term is linked to that definition clearly, then it would be properly used in any case. Further, if a source uses the term cult, then such usage, as referenced, is also proper. Collect (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Unorthodox from whose point of view? Are Christians unorthodox by Muslim values, and vice versa? Are Buddhists unorthodox? If they are, what is the point of saying so? They are Buddhists. Your other points -- I would deny that Prem Rawat's following was encouraged to have the kind of beliefs that are generally regarded as "religious." No codes of behaviour, except voluntary ones, no belief in an afterlife (or pre-life), no peculiar clothes, no claims of a special status or being "saved", etc. The belief has only been in the effectiveness of the techniques of inner knowledge. The group certainly does not have a "high degree of tension with the surrounding society." Premies come from all walks of life, and their colleagues most likely do not know they practise the techniques. (Mine never have.) It fails on most counts. If including the word cult tells us something important about Prem Rawat and his movement, let's do so. Personally, I am not convinced yet. Rumiton (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

From the list of references for this article:

• Barrett, David V. (2001). The new believers : a survey of sects, cults, and alternative religions. London; New York, NY: Cassell ; Distributed in the United States by Sterling Pub.. ISBN 0304355925 9780304355921 1844030407 9781844030408.
• Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin (1993). The illustrated encyclopedia of active new religions, sects, and cults. New York: Rosen Pub. Group. ISBN 0823915050 : 9780823915057.
• Galanter, Marc (1999). Cults: Faith, Healing and Coercion. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195123697 9780195123692 0195123700 9780195123708.
• Levine, Saul V. in Galanter, Marc (1989). Cults and New Religious Movements: A Report of the American Psychiatric Association. American Psychiatric Pub., Inc. ISBN 0890422125.
• Lewis, James; NetLibrary, Inc. (1998a). Cults in America a reference handbook. Santa Barbara Calif.: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9780585058436.
• Lewis, James R. (1998b). The encyclopedia of cults, sects, and new religions. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. ISBN 1573922226 9781573922227.
• Melton, J. Gordon; Robert L. Moore (1982). The cult experience : responding to the new religious pluralism. New York: Pilgrim Press. ISBN 0829806199 : 9780829806199.
• Melton, J. Gordon. (1986). The encyclopedic handbook of cults in America, Garland reference library of social science, v. 213. New York: Garland Pub.. ISBN 0824090365 9780824090364.
• Petersen, William J. (1982-12). Those Curious New Cults in the 80's, Revised, Keats Pub, 307. ISBN 0879833173.
• And so on. See also: Talk:Prem Rawat/Leader of

The word "cult" has been used by numerous scholars in a descriptive manner. WP:WTA deals with how Misplaced Pages refers to article subjects; it does not censor us from discussing what terms others have used. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

We have talked about this before. If the word cult is "descriptive", then what is being described? Does it tell us anything about the teachings of Prem Rawat, or about the organisation that existed in the 70s? Or is it just a cheap-shot, a book cover banner, and an appeal to religious and social prejudices? We must be careful that Misplaced Pages uses the highest and best voices, not the lowest and worst, though of course their existence must be acknowledged. Rumiton (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Working from the WP sociological definition of cult : a small religious group with novel religious beliefs and a high degree of tension with the surrounding society. The group is a "small religous group - no issue. Does it have "novel religious beliefs"? I would say likely so, especially since it has devolved from traditional Hindu practices, to be sure. Does it have a "high degree of tension with the surrounding society"? Surely the earlier incarnations did have such tension, and thus referring to the earlier groups as "cults" is pretty clear. Is the current group a "cult"? I would like to have an open mind until others weigh in on whether there is currently a "high degree of tension." What say everyone? Collect (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

According to most scholars Rawat's teachings are Hindu based. It should therefore be seen like any branch of a major religion (Hindus are 13% of world pop). We don't call individual Christian ministries a "cult". Neither do Rawat's followers have novel religious beliefs, all scholars confirm that practicing "knowledge" is "internal and highly individual, with no associated social structure, liturgy, ethical practices or articles of faith". Finally, according to Stoner and Parke in 1978, "the contemporary recruit is more likely to be a student, musician, artist, lawyer, or teacher-a well-educated man or woman who is, or is destined to become, a solid member of the community". So no tension there.Momento (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

My belief is that it's not our job to decide whether Rawat's following is or was a cult, sect, NRM, etc. Our job is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. If sources say that the following is or was a cult, sect, and NRM then that's what this article should say. Sources may even conflict and when they do we should report all sides of the matter, as required by WP:NPOV. As for using only the "highest and best voices", see the list of scholarly volumes that include the subject in discussions of cults. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Our task is to find words which will accurately reflect actions and opinions of Prem Rawat in this biography of a living person. I am fairly certain that the earlier incarnations of his group were, indeed, "cults" but that the evidence is not as strong for the current incarnation. Most of the references cited deal, in fact, with the earlier "cults." The other issue at hand appears to be funding -- the Foundation appears to be funded in a fairly simple manner, but I would like to know if any funds are directly given to Prem Rawat as that would influence my opinion as to how the "donation" issue should be treated. Clearly the older "cults" were quite improper in their pushing for donations from the accounts cited, but it is not as clear that the latest incarnation does the same. What we need is information on this. Clearly any current cites which are furnished will aid in making this a proper article. Collect (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You feel it was "quite improper in their pushing for donations"? Do you feel Misplaced Pages is improper for having "donate now" on the top of this page? Or is your criticism just reserved for DLM/EV/TPRF? Momento (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This article covers all periods of the subject's life. The period of his life from 1972 to 1982 received considerable attention from scholars and journalists alike. The last 25 years of his life have received only a faction of that attention, in part because he consciously adopted a lower profile. However that means that there are far fewer sources covering this later period. If you look in the page Talk:Prem Rawat/Leader of you'll find some excerpts from the more recent sources. (In many cases, the original sources can be found online with a search, or editors here can provide you with copies). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I read it all. The use of "cult" (other than the French usage which counts Mormons as a "cult") for Rawat's organization in the past few years is not as clear-cut as one would hope. The use of "cult" for the older organizations is, in fact, quite clear cut. Collect (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It's absolutely clear cut. It has only been used as a pejorative by biased journalists. If you're not "white bread Christians" you're weird and should be made fun of. That's why Wiki prefers scholars.Momento (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Momento, if the assertion is that Rawat's following has been referred to as a cult by only "biased journalists" then that is plainly incorrect. First, we don't know of the individual biases of all the journalists, so to assert that they are making fun of Rawat because he is not a "white bread Christian" is unfounded. Second, scholars have also called the following a "cult". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Would they be Christian scholars Will?Momento (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, there we go. Journalists aren't acceptable sources because all media are biased. Sources that agree with each other aren't acceptable because they're just repeating each other. Sociologists aren't acceptable sources because they are, well, sociologists. Christian scholars aren't acceptable because they belong to a different religion. Ditto for Sikh scholars. That leaves one acceptable source: Ron Geaves. And the fact that he's a follower of the subject is totally irrelevant. Is that correct? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"Whatever the movement, Rawat is not its leader"

Is this really a contention? Does anyone here assert that Prem Rawat is not the leader of his followers, or at least wasn't in years past? There are many sources that talk about "his" movement, or describe him as its leader or head. This university newspaper correction isn't a sufficient source on its own. If that's all we have then it hardly seem worth mentioning. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"Playful and pontifical"

• Late September 1973, Rawat was described as playful and pontifical in the Great Bend Tribune.

That long article says many things about Rawat. Why are we mentioning these two adjectives? What's the point? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If there's no reason for these two words beig in the article, I'll delete the sentence. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Seeing no exaplanation, I'll remove it. That said, the Carter article is a good source with many facts about the subject and the DLM. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Religious Followers are not reliable sources

It is absurd that internet articles written by religious followers are being considered as legitimate sources. Do we take historical facts about Jesus from random internet websites written by Christian's or do we take the historians perspective who has been vetted by other academics. It is clear that this man is a cult leader and this is being completely under represented in this article. This article has been clearly hijacked by followers of this mans cult to make him look a little more holy than the man actually is. Jesus does not even receive this kind of bias treatment on wikipedia this cult leader should definitely not either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.117.116 (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines covering which sources are suitable, WP:V and WP:RS. Internet articles published by the subject's movement are considered self-published sources and are allowable for limited use, in particular for non-controversial statements that aren't unduly self-promotional. I believe that the article complies with the relevant policies in that respect, but the article changes so it needs to be monitored.

As for your second point, about the subject being a cult leader, that is a significant point of view and Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy requires that we include it. The article does say, under "Media response", Rawat has been termed a cult leader in popular press reports, and anti-cult writings. How much weight and prominence we give that assertion depends on a combination of the number and importance of sources that make the assertion, and of the agreement among editors here. If you'd like to participate in that discussion you're welcome to join us. I suggest registering a user name. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly those policies are not being followed when it comes to this article. They are not used in limited use they are used throughout the article to make this well known cult figure and con artist look like a hero. They are completely self promotional because they are members of his cult. Telling members of your own cult to write articles about you and having Misplaced Pages staff such as Jossi to protect the article is self promotional and wrong.

Cult leader is not included in the article and to be neutral it should be included in the start of the article not hidden deep inside so you have to ravage through propaganda to find the truth. It should be laid out clearly in the opening that he is a well known cult leader but some people do follow him. I don't think anyone with a rational mind and an understanding of modern science would believe this man is anything other than a con artist and not a god as he claims and this article attempts to prove. This is giant wank off on this guy the likes of Christianity doesn't even recieve. Why would I want to join your organization when you help breed ignorance and give cult members such high power such as "This administrator, Jossi Fresco, is a longtime student of Prem Rawat - formerly Guru Maharaj Ji - the India-born spiritual leader who styled himself as the "Perfect Master" and fostered a worldwide religious movement encouraging followers to call him "Lord of the Universe."

Jossi Fresco openly acknowledges he's employed by an organization "related" to Prem Rawat, and according to an ex-Rawat-follower and former friend, he served on the guru's personal staff and built the guru's first web site. Nonetheless, Fresco maintains strict control over Misplaced Pages’s Prem Rawat article and countless related articles, keeping criticism of his guru to a bare minimum." This is a sham of a encyclopedia and I would have no part in it. That is why actual scientist and respected authors are creating their own because this place is falling apart. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/06/the_cult_of_wikipedia/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.117.116 (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Jossi removed some cited content here, along with the citation itself, which appears to be a reliable source. I'll wait for an explanation before I do anything else besides readding it. Cla68 (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Why are unsigned denigratory comments accepted here without removal? Somone who does not dare to stand for what he says does not deserve to have his comments here. Sounds like a certain brand of ex-premies. Like we say in Spanish, "throws the stone and hides the hand". I cannot understand it. If any person really had full control on Prem's biography I would never think he is a follower--Pedrero (talk) 02:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Very few editors sign their real names. Some editors don't have accounts at all and so they just use their IP addresses. While we call those users "anons", they may actually be less anonymous because their IP addresses can often be tracked. The only thing that's forbidden is using multiple accounts to edit the same topic, or using usernames that are offensive or misleading. Otherwise it's pretty much OK to sign your posts as you like. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Does Misplaced Pages discriminate?

All religions and spiritual movements started being considered sects or cults by previous religions, including Christians, etc. No one started with millions, that came long after masters or leaders died. Why are there not similar "cult" or "sect" remarks in all other biographies of religious and spiritual leaders and movements?

All masters, true or false, lived without working, preaching was their job. There is no proof that Jesus worked as a carpenter until he was 30, that is just how we have tried to fill the inexplicable silence of the gospels on most of his life. All masters have lived from the "payments" of their followers, including Jesus, etc. Prem Rawat may be the first or one of the few to be financially independent. Why are there not similar remarks on "payments" in all other biographies of religious and spiritual leaders? --Pedrero (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion forum. No discrimination is going on surrounding this topic. There are discussion forums available for you to join if you want to have discussions with other premies. See Chatanand. There are also many blogs you can read that are written by adherents of Prem Rawat which give you the chance to comment if you want. Just do a Google Blog search and plug in "Maharaji." You'll find plenty of premies to contact and converse with. There's no discrimination happening here because as Maharaji always says, as well as his organizations' FAQ state, practicing Knowledge and following him is compatible with, but not a spiritual practice, philosophy, life-style or religion. Therefore, your complaints about discrimination are unfounded. Best wishes. Sylviecyn (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a legitimate topic to improve this article. Thanks.Momento (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The job of Misplaced Pages editors is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. In this case, sources have devoted considerable attention to the subject's lifestyle. The biography of Jesus spends time talking about his relationship to his apostles. Yet this biography doesn't even mention the mahatmas that were called the apostles of Guru Maharaj Ji. We have an entire article devoted to the shoes that the Pope wears, yet we don't even mention Prem Rawat's footwear. So it goes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

A disingenuous argument, it seems to me. You are comparing contentious and inflammatory topics with neutral ones. Rumiton (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if instead of looking at Jesus Christ, we go look at Rawat's contemporaries, like Jim Jones, Satya Sai Baba, Rev. Moon, etc, I think you'll find similar topics covered. The fact that Pedrero would compare Rawat to Christ speaks volumes. Folks keep saying that the movement has changed, but the 1970s DLM repeatedly compared to Guru Maharaj Ji to Christ. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

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

1. "The Keys, by Maharaji".
2. "Maharaji in North America".
3. "NAM Frequently Asked Questions: "Knowledge"". Retrieved 2008-11-20.
4. Callinan, Rory. "Cult Leader Jets In to Recruit New Believers: Millionaire cult leader Maharaj Ji is holding a secret session west of Brisbane this weekend" in Brisbane Courier-Mail. September 20, 1997
5. Mendick, Robert. "Cult leader gives cash to Lord Mayor appeal" in Evening Standard. London, 2007-05-31, p. 4. At HighBeam Research
6. Rhodes, Ron The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions: The Essential Guide to Their History, Their Doctrine, and Our Response, Ch. 1: Defining Cults. Zondervan, 2001, ISBN 0310232171, p. 32.
7. Price 1979
8. ^ "Correction" in The Daily Californian. May 1, 2003.
9. Stoner and Parke 1977, p. 77
10. Barret 2003, p.65
11. Downton 1979: "...Changes in terminology were made in an attempt to divorce the Mission from its Indian trappings..."
12. Price 1979
13. "Maharaj Ji" in The Houghton Mifflin Dictionary of Biography. U.S., 2003, ISBN 061825210X, p. 994
14. Melton 1986
15. Price 1979
16. Army Pamphlet 165-13 1978
17. Melton et al 1993
18. Kilbourne, Brok & Richardson, James T. Cultphobia, Thought 61, 258-266; as cited in Ralph W. Neighbour Jr; Spilka, Bernard; Bruce Hunsberger; Gorsuch, Richard L. (2003). The Psychology of Religion, Third Edition: An Empirical Approach. New York: The Guilford Press. pp. p.401. ISBN 1-57230-901-6. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Teachings duplicated

per conversation with jossi et al, the Teachings section is basically duplicated elsewhere in WP. As a result, most of it is not pertinent to the BLP of Prem Rawat. Can we go back to a much shorter version rather than have the whole section back in place? I am not sure, in point of fact, that any of it is needed here, but would think a very short precis would work. Thanks! Collect (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what we've got now.Momento (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Is the line about opinions of practitioners directly germane, however? Collect (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that the teachings should be removed pretty much completely -- they are not directly related to the BLP, they are duplicated in other articles, and they serve, at best, to attract discussion unrelated to a biography. I note a great deal has been re-added, although in my discussion with jossi I was told there should be no objection to the removal. Collect (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the material is unnecessary in this article. At most a short paragraph might be left, per WP:SUMMARY. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Rawat's teachings are more important to his notability than anything else. No teachings no notability. The fact that we have a separate article for teachings show how important they are. But readers should be able to get some understanding of his claim to fame from this article without having to go elsewhere.Momento (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As per "Each article on a subtopic, are encyclopedic articles in their own right and contain their own lead sections (which will be quite similar to the summary in their 'parent' article". And that is what we have here.Momento (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages:SUMMARY#Levels_of_desired_details, this section should be at least several paragraphs long, which is now the case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That article is due for an overhaul, and after that the summary that Momento wrote for this article also needs to be worked on to properly cover the topic. There's no end to the work to be done on Misplaced Pages! ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Halley beating

Restored the deletion of the paragraph about the Detroit incident, which was performed by an uninvolved editor User:Collect. It can be moved to the DLM article, and summarized in a short sentence here is indispensable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

We've been over this before. The pie throwing and subsequent beating were highly-reported events in the history of the subject. I've restored the well-sourced material. It would take far more than a short sentence to summarize the matter with its correct weight. Since the material partly involves Rawat and partly involves the DLM, and since there is so many sources available, perhaps it's time to spin this out into a separate article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? I think that it is unnecessary... It was incident, sure. It may need to be reported, sure. But a paragraph of that size in the context of this article. No, don't think so... It simply does not fit with the rest of the article's subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• Old requests for Biography peer review
• WikiProject Biography articles