Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:55, 3 September 2012

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.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Cade Metz (2008-02-06). "Misplaced Pages ruled by 'Lord of the Universe': When is a cult not a cult?". The Register.

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 add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: New religious movements Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Spirituality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Prem Rawat (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Prem Rawat, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Prem RawatWikipedia:WikiProject Prem RawatTemplate:WikiProject Prem RawatPrem Rawat

	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

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 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: 30 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

Subpages

• 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, /mahatmas, /Leader of
• 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 – March 2008 March 2008 March 2008 March – April 2008 March – May 2008 May – June 2008 May – August 2008 August – November 2008 November 2008 – January 2009 April 2009 April – July 2009 June 2009 – May 2010 May – June 2010 June – August 2010 August – September 2010 October 2010 – January 2012 January – February 2012 February –

New TPRF release on the PEP

There's a new report on the activities of the Peace Education Programm, which is quite informative, including a video. It says there are 10 DVDs provided especially for this intent, and it seems to reflect some effort to standardize the undertaking, maybe covering some unanswered questions we encountered here before. See it at http://tprf.org/en/programs/peace-education-program. TPRF seem to be offering their PEP internationally.--Rainer P. (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight in lead

Just looking at the lead with fresh eyes and noticed how unbalanced it is.

It contains two references to Rawat's "divinity" when one is enough.

1. many saw him as an incarnation of the divine.

2. ridiculed in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status.

Four criticisms.

1. described as a cult.

2. ridiculed in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status.

3. Journalists noting luxury automobiles and multiple residences

4. criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses (others were impressed)

And yet not one mention of his followers as described in the article

1. Many were attracted by the sense of joy, peace and commitment shown by Rawat's followers

2. Love flowed back and forth between him and his devotees

3. The premies were described as "cheerful, friendly and unruffled" and seeming "nourished by their faith".

4. To the 400 premie parents who attended, Rawat was "a rehabilitator of prodigal sons and daughters"

Momento (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-WP concerns have kept me less active here recently, but I am still planning to go ahead with the recommended arbcom request (best guess, this weekend sometime I will get to it) regarding where we ended off with the DRN process. I suspect that when that's all done, the lead will, if anything, prove to be too little weight, instead of too much as you suggest. However, if I read what you're saying correctly, you'd like to re-write the lead, please post your suggested edits here for discussion first, as per our usual process. thanks. -- Maelefique 10:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

In the interests of brevity I think the easiest way is to amalgamate the two "divine" comments in a NPOV way and reduce the "negative" from four items to the two, the ridicule in the media and that DLM was a cult and then it won't be necessary to add some balancing "positives" about his followers. Therefore,

"At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru (lit. Perfect Master) to millions of Indian followers. Rawat gained further prominence when he traveled to the West at age 13 to spread his message. His claimed ability to impart direct knowledge of God attracted a great deal of interest from young adults but he was ridiculed by the media for his youth and his supposed divine status. Under his charismatic leadership, the Divine Light Mission (DLM) became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West, though it was sometimes described as a cult". Momento (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I only have a problem with the removal of the divinity aspect, as that is what the most recent discussions are about, and if the arbcom discussions result in any changes, that mention would have to go right back in anyway. Removing that point would seem to lessen it's impact, rather than show what a large part of his "mystique" was at the time, and that doesn't seem like the correct direction to be moving in, I'm waiting to see what other think as well here. -- Maelefique 15:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think, Momento's suggestion is more concise and coherent than the current version, as it contains less debris from battles past. Looks to me like an improvement in neutrality.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

There are no ARB:COM discussions pending. That was just a threat made by MED:COM when I exposed their performance. The LEAD has to reflect the article and it currently doesn't where as my proposal does.Momento (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

My proposal contains the following words, in just two paragraphs, which all reflect on Rawat's "mystique" (in order) -Maharaji, Guru Maharaji, Divine, Satguru, Perfect Master, followers, God, divine, charismatic, Divine, religious, cult. You can hardly say it's not adequately covered.Momento (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Still I miss reference to more modern developements, as are covered in the article.--Rainer P. (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

This proposal only covers the first two paragraphs of the LEAD that brings us up to Rawat turning 16.Momento (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, if I wasn't clear, as MEDCOM hasn't had the time to pursue the matter further, and we haven't had a resolution to the question, it was suggested to me, and I agree that, I should bring the matter to ARBCOM myself, rather than wait. Which is what I am planning to do (unfortunately, life elsewhere has kept me busier than I had expected recently). It wasn't a threat or anything that I was making, I believe I've made it clear before that I intended to follow through with the discussion, I was only re-iterating that point. And again, the only big problem I have with your re-write of the lead is the removal of the part that mentions him being seen by many as Divine. -- Maelefique 20:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It is adequately covered by "his supposed divine status". Why would the lead need to say it twice.Momento (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Because of the context, the first time it's mentioned it states that many people saw him as divine, the second time is only a reference to one of the reassons the press ridiculed him, that's completely different context. -- Maelefique 05:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

If we wanted to put that "many people saw him as divine" to be balanced we would have to add the qualifiers that go with that statement in the article - "A reporter ... wrote that Rawat appeared humble and human, and seemed to intentionally undercut the claims of divinity made by followers. Sociologist James Downton said that from his beginnings Rawat appealed to his followers to give up concepts and beliefs that might impede them from fully experiencing the Knowledge (or life force), but this did not prevent them from adopting a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity, and to project millennial preconceptions onto him and the movement." To put "many people saw him as divine" without the qualifiers that appears in the article is a clear breach of NPOV. The media statement, whoever, stands on its own and give a valuable insight as to how Rawat was presented to the world by the media. Momento (talk) 06:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

"If we wanted to put that "many people saw him as divine" to be balanced we would have to add the qualifiers that go with that statement in the article", which is exactly what the upcoming arbcom discussion is about, as you know. However, if I don't have the time in the next week to get that ball rolling, then I'll retract my objection to that, and we can re-insert it again later if the arbcom decision falls that way. -- Maelefique 05:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This is just another attempt to whitewash the article. My opinion is that the lead is okay the way it is and no edits ought be made to it without another arbcom. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You may see this article as a "puff piece" and any attempt to improve it as "another attempt to white wash" it but editing has always been based on accurately and neutrally reporting available sources. And the lead should reflect that which is why it needs to be changed. Apart from the obvious improvement in readability.Momento (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What an improvement, short, sharp and to the point. The third paragraph ends with this sentence - "The Divine Light Mission was disbanded in the West in the early 1980s, succeeded by the organizations Elan Vital (1983) and The Prem Rawat Foundation (2001)". Why, you may ask, do we have a sentence about organisations in the lead of a biography about Prem Rawat? Surely it should be noting what PR was doing between 1980 and 2001 not what some temporary tool was doing. Momento (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you think it's an improvement, otherwise you wouldn't have suggested it. However, you don't have consensus for this change yet -- Maelefique 20:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sylviecyn's comment isn't part of a consensus discussion - it comes under the heading of Tendentious Editing... Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on. Sylviecyn's comments that this is a "puff piece" and any attempt to improve it as "another attempt to white wash" amply indicate a lack of Good Faith. Suggesting that we need to get approval before any changes is catering to WP:OWN. Reverting to cater to WP:OWN is inappropriate to say the least. The proposal significantly benefits the article and that should be the main criteria for inclusion not WP:OWN.Momento (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to Sylvie's comments. I understand that you think it's an improvement. I don't agree, for the reasons mentioned above. We know there are several other editors that watch this article, so there should be more opinions trickling in. Jumping the gun and making changes because you think it's better (even when I explained why I didn't think it was) is where I see WP:OWN coming into this discussion. -- Maelefique 06:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Three editors discuss the proposal and the reasons for it and agree to the change; another editor then says the article is a "puff piece", "another attempt to whitewash" and "no edits ought be made to it without another arbcom", The first three editors are following Wiki editing procedure, the fourth is indulging in bad faith, lack of civility and tendentious editing. Let's leave it 24 hours and see if anyone has any real objections.Momento (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for being glib, but I do agree with Maelefique that, because your proposal concerns another issue of divinity which is a contentious issue in this article, concensus must be obtained before an edit is made. Concensus was not reached before you made your edit (which was reverted rightly so). It doesn't matter to me what you think of me or my comments -- you make snarky comments to and about me all of the time here -- yet, if you don't accept my edits here in good faith, that's problem enough to throw this article into arbcom 3. Have a good weekend! Sylviecyn (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I incorrectly assumed that Maelefique's comment " However, if I don't have the time in the next week to get that ball rolling, then I'll retract my objection to that" was referring to my proposal and that we could put it in awaiting an Arbcom decision. I can't see how Arbcom is going to be interested in a "divinity" discussion.Momento (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

When are you going to make your Arbcom request and what are you going to ask?Momento (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph three

I don't imagine there will be any objections to replacing the last sentence in Lead paragraph three - "The Divine Light Mission was disbanded in the West in the early 1980s, succeeded by the organizations Elan Vital (1983) and The Prem Rawat Foundation (2001)" with a sentence or two that describes what PR has been doing since he "retained control of the movement outside India" in the early 80's. After all this article is about PR not organisations. Something like - "As his following increased through the 80s and 90s Rawat toured extensively, piloting a jet around 250,000 miles a year. His message is available in eighty-eight countries and his program "Words of Peace" is broadcast on TV channels around the world".Momento (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Did anybody say anything about a whitewash? Surdas (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

If there are no objections I will replace the sentence as per the proposal.Momento (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I object (on holiday and internet is intermittent so cannot fully explain. Please wait and don't edit yet!!PatW (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking forward to your objection Pat.Momento (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I’ve been away for vacation and I will try to keep following the action on this page and see if I can understand what is happening. Routine-blindness does no good. We can't help but forget how the article appeals to a neutral reader. Let me say, I am delighted and amused by the exquisite courteousness that now characterizes, well, most contributions, it gives me hope. I think we can profit from a little distance to all this editing business every now and then. Perhaps I can relate to part of some editors’ uneasiness with Momento’s proposal. My own impression was, that somehow the ring of the sentences comes, as my dictionary says, a little bit striking, perhaps lacking in enzyclopedic distance. But I agree completely with what is said as regards content. Anybody know what I mean? A matter of style. Just as it strikes me reading in Misplaced Pages about teenage Rawat's ulcer and such. The article appears to me like my home town in Germany few years after the war. When the dust has settled and the smoke has cleared, there is still an odour in the air, and duds are found every day, but you can start to assess the damage and get to work.--Rainer P. (talk) 06:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is an appropriate reason to delay changing the last sentence in Lead paragraph three. According to Misplaced Pages MOS the Lead should be a concise overview of the article and the vast majority of the 1983 -2000s section contains info about his following, his travelling, his use of media and awards and charitable work. The info about DLM becoming EV, establishing TPRF account for less than 5% of the content. Momento (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps make a proposal that sums it up in a more neutral style than above version? An unbiased reader should not be able to tell it's been formulated by a supporter or a critic.--Rainer P. (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"As his following increased through the 80s and 90s Rawat toured extensively, piloting a jet around 250,000 miles a year. His message is available in eighty-eight countries and his program "Words of Peace" is broadcast on TV channels around the world". These two sentences sum up the !983+ period far better than the current sentence. As WP:CON says "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale".Momento (talk) 10:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Momento, what are your sources for the additional information about Rawat "piloting a jet around 250,000 miles a year" other than the organizations' websites? I really object to your changing the lede paragraph without properly sourcing them. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The info about "piloting a jet around 250,000 miles a year" is properly sourced as is clear from the article. So your objection to the proposal is baseless, as is your claim that I am "changing the lede paragraph without properly sourcing". As the sign above says "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. Momento (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I didn't notice the Geaves source. I believe that Geaves, being a decades-long follower of Rawat, should not be treated with as much weight as other sources, such as journalists and scholar of NRMs. I'll also remind you that discussions about fellow editors on an article talk page is also against the rules. I'm just trying to understand your need to make changes so quickly when the article has been stable for so long. It's clear we both have conflicts of interest so I don't see your pov carrying more weight here than mine. I've declared that here and you haven't. My conflict of interest is something that caused me to decide not to edit the article proper. Please stop making comments about me here. Sylviecyn (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, i couldn't find a 250,000 miles a year in the article. What do you mean with "clear from the article"?Surdas (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It does say somewhere "a quarter of a million miles" alright, based on a Geaves paper. Still I feel that the plain number is an information too particular for a summary, sounds too much like promotional blurb, even when it's true. "Extensively" or something to this effect would do properly, I think. The same goes for the "88 countries" and "TV-channels around the world". In a summary, that ought to be summed in a way, too. Maybe something like "large number" and "receivable worldwide"?--Rainer P. (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Good points Rainer. Looking at the paragraph as a whole, how about -

When Rawat turned sixteen he took control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement. His marriage to an American in 1974 prompted a split with his mother and the Indian DLM but he retained control of the international movement, later abandoning the religious aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable. As his following increased in the 80s and 90s Rawat began touring extensively. His message and the TV program "Words of Peace" are now available throughout the world.

It contains all the important info and reduces the para from 98 words to 86. Momento (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fair and neutral to me.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Rainer. Just thought that "marriage to a non-Indian" is more informative than "American". So -

When Rawat turned sixteen he took control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement. His marriage to a non Indian in 1974 prompted a split with his mother and the Indian DLM but he retained control of the international movement, later abandoning the religious aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable. As his following increased in the 80s and 90s Rawat began touring extensively. His message and the TV program "Words of Peace" are now available throughout the world.

Also thinking that we probably don't need all the cites in the Lead. They're available in the article and it makes it easier to read without them. Momento (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with leaving the cites out of the lead, but I'm a little confused how "non-Indian" is a more informative word than "American", I see the opposite as being true. Also I find that your revised version of that time plays down the family and the DLM splits. His TV program may be viewed in many countries, but that is not the same as "around the world", which tends to imply it is everywhere, it isn't (last stat we have is that it's available in 88 countries, there are 196-ish on the planet). We also have no information on "his message" being available throughout the world, where did that come from? And are you considering dropping the rest of the DLM/Elan Vital/TPRF info from the lead? If so, we should consider dropping their work from the article as well, I don't think you want to do that. -- Maelefique 02:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The article says "non-Indian" so we should go with that. It would be more accurate to mention the "split" before the marriage since Mata Ji and Satpal had already gone back to India. DLM/Elan Vital/TPRF evolution must be in the article but doesn't need to be in the lead. The message available all over the world is a consequence of the internet and is easier to express than 88 countries as at 2006. Suggestions welcome.Momento (talk) 06:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC).

I agree with Momento there. "American" would imply, that had she been European or Australian, there would have been no problem, which is unconfirmed. Rawats message is globally available on the internet, which is explicitely named world-wide-web, mainly through Words of Peace. And I agree with Maelefique, that the DLM/Elan VItal/TPRF-sequence is historically notable enough to be mentioned in the lead section. Maybe we can bring these issues in relation to each other, the name changes orchestrating significant developments in Rawat's work?--Rainer P. (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

We have many references for her being American, the source is not a problem there. Do we have some reason to believe that if she was Indian but from the west, that Mom would have been ok with that? It's my understanding that not just any Indian would have been ok either. If we have some kind of references that makes that more clear we should use that, otherwise, I think we should use the most accurate references we have. Non-indian could mean she's Japanese, she's not, and we don't know if ethnicity, or religious belief, or something else was at the heart of her decision. Although I strongly suspect that the non-indian aspect plays a major role (along with the fact that she wasn't asked for approval of her/got to pick her). It may even have been more culturally based, ie, an American living in India for the previous 20 years may have been just fine. We don't know. We do know that Marolyn was an American, and not of Indian descent.

You say above that they had already gone back to India, but your suggested edit says "His marriage to a non Indian in 1974 prompted a split with his mother and the Indian DLM" that seems to contradict the chronology, did we want to alter that too now? And I'm not sure that going back to India is the breaking point, they were back there yes, but is that relevant, or were they just back there because the DLM needed them there for something else, or they were just visiting home, or she was unhappy with PR and was taking a little break? Again, I don't know that, but I do know the sources say it was his marriage that did the whole camel/straw/back thing.

Being available on the internet is crossing back into puffery, my personal homepage is also on the internet, does that mean I have a "message available across the planet" that is notable? No, anything on the internet does not get "notable" status for being there. If you have some stats for numbers of hits on the keys websites or something, that might be notable, but still probably too in-depth for the lead. Imo being broadcast in 88 countries is much more of an achievement than putting up a website, but if you want to go with that, then I think we need to add "is available worldwide, via the internet" for clarity.

And since, as far as I can tell, none of PR's work is done now without the TPRF foundation (or the other one that just replaced EV, WOPI?) you cannot keep the things completely separated out. -- Maelefique 16:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, non-Indian is what the article says. It says also, she was from San Diego, but it would sound a little weird to say, Mom dismissed the girl because she was from San Diego. So, non-Indian may be ok as at least it represents the text. But I understand your point. I also see your point about the difference between an internet homepage and having a program on the air in a large number of countries (though I am not convinced that people pay money for being able to listen to you on the internet). And I think, most sources agree that the marriage was the final drop for the family rift. And I think, the changing of organisations is notable. With so much agreement, let's try and find words for this we also can agree on.--Rainer P. (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Mata Ji wanted him the marry to girl she had selected but the split had already occurred, the marriage was the final straw rather than the cause. WoP is telecast from 34 countries in Africa, Europe, North and South America, Asia, Australia/New Zealand/Fiji but how do you say it? Perhaps -

"When Rawat turned sixteen he took control of the international organisation (and married a non-Indian) which precipitated a split from his mother who retained control of DLM in India. He later abandoned the religious aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable and replaced DLM with Elan Vital. His following increased in the 80s and 90s with Rawat touring extensively. In 2001 he established "The Prem Rawat Foundation" to fund his work and humanitarian efforts and his message is now distributed in more than 88 countries. The TV series "Words of Peace" is transmitted via satellite and cable in six continents".

Momento (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No mentioning of the wedding?--Rainer P. (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I've put it in (above in brackets) to see how it would fit. The media caught up to the split when PR married, it is interesting but more a media beat up and a personal milestone for PR than a significant step in his encyclopaedic journey. Let's see what Maelefique says, if he wants it we can remove the brackets.Momento (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

So this looks like taking control of the organisation caused the split , which is not what the text says. Especially when taking the marriage into brackets. Looks like twisting the truth for me. I'd prefer to leave it as it was than making such changes. Surdas (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

This is true. I don't think the truth is twisted, but we cannot state allegations or conclusions in the lead that have no real counterpart in the article.--Rainer P. (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The article says - "Because of Prem Rawat's youth, his mother, Mata Ji, and eldest brother, Satpal, managed the affairs of the worldwide DLM. When Rawat reached sixteen years of age he wanted to take a more active part in guiding the movement. According to the sociologist James V. Downton, this meant he "had to encroach on his mother's territory and, given the fact that she was accustomed to having control, a fight was inevitable". In December 1973, Rawat took administrative control of the Mission's US branch, and his mother and Satpal returned to India." Followed by "Rawat's marriage to a non-Indian finally severed his relationship with his mother". The proposal covers that info.Momento (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked that paragraph. You are right.--Rainer P. (talk) 04:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It still says that the marriage severed the relationship and not the taking control. Your sentence above changes the picture Surdas (talk) 05:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It says "finally", indicating that there had been a process of erosion before, that had nothing to do with the marriage.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This is clearer but longer - "When Rawat turned sixteen he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement. The following May he married against his mother's wishes, which prompted her to disown him and appoint his eldest brother as head of the Indian DLM. Rawat retained control of the movement outside India and abandoned the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable, replacing Divine Light Mission with Elan Vital. As his following increased in the 80s and 90s Rawat toured almost constantly. In 2001 he established "The Prem Rawat Foundation" to fund his work and humanitarian efforts and his message is now distributed in more than 88 countries. The TV series "Words of Peace" is transmitted via satellite and cable in six continents". Momento (talk) 11:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't it a court sentence that actually did the split? Mata Ji tried to install Sat Pal as Perfect Master for all of the DLM, or did Rawat try to control all of the DLM until it came to court?. Surdas (talk) 08:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The word "split" doesn't appear in the article nor does it appear in the proposal. What does appear in the article and in the proposal is - "Rawat's marriage to a non-Indian prompted his mother to disown him and appoint his eldest brother as head of the Indian DLM. Rawat retained control of the movement outside India". Any more comments.~~

I've taken the "non Indian" bit out. Mata Ji said she removed Rawat for "lack of respect for her wishes".Momento (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

.....and leading the lifestyle of a playboy. It should be more precise Surdas (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Where is that mentioned in the article?--Rainer P. (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

well it is just summed up as "unspiritual" , but why limiting the case to a mother that is just angry about her child for not obeying her. The unspiritual behaviour has more weight than the wishes in my opinion. It can be sourced from a New York Times article and it may be should, because there seem to be some unclear views about that Surdas (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It is certainly a very interesting detail, his mother rating Rawat's degree of spirituality. But I don't think it needs more space in the lead, unless it had more space in the article. I don't think it needs more space, as there are copious links to scientific literature, where the rather complicated affair may be appraised with enough precision.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The Lead can't contain everything in the article. The proposal is now more faithful to the article, reads better and includes the necessary material from 1983 on. Unless there are any objections I will make the change.Momento (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

What you don't seem to get is how incredibly unhealthy it is for Rawat supporters to swarm around this article deciding amongst themselves how it should 'read better'. It's a recipe for a totally biased article. Even I as a passionate critic of Rawat would refrain from this kind of partisan group think. You don't seem to realise how your discussions reek of being unable to resist the temptation to assert a POV despite your best efforts to flatter yourselves you are capable as the next man of neutrality. Isn't everyone in this conversation a Rawat supporter apart from Maelefique who probably thinks you know better than he on these matters? A fact you seem to happily exploit. PatW (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion to wait a month until further edits are made

As a courtesy to editors on this article who are on vacation or otherwise busy this summer, I suggest that all edits be put on a (very) short, voluntary hold until, say September. That way we can have more relaxed and congenial discussions about proposals. I request that others also oblige. Please indicate below if you agree. Thanks! Sylviecyn (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

-- Agree. Sylviecyn (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't agree. It should only takes a minute to realise that we should "replace the last sentence in Lead paragraph three - "The Divine Light Mission was disbanded in the West in the early 1980s, succeeded by the organizations Elan Vital (1983) and The Prem Rawat Foundation (2001)" with a sentence or two that describes what PR has been doing since he "retained control of the movement outside India" in the early 80's. After all this article is about PR not organisations." If you can't see that now I doubt that you'll be able to see it in September.Momento (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There is indeed so little semblance between the original DLM and today's TPRF, that just stating a succession of organisation names seems insufficient or even misleading to me. It may be historically notable, but needs to be complemented with information about the corresponding changes, based on the article. I don't see a need for hurry nor for a moratorium.--Rainer P. (talk) 04:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead paragraph two

As already discussed, paragraph two does not faithfully reflect the balance achieved in the article. It contains two references to Rawat's "divinity" when one is enough. 1. many saw him as an incarnation of the divine. 2. ridiculed in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status. THree criticisms. 1. described as a cult. 2. ridiculed in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status. 3. Journalists noting luxury automobiles and multiple residences And yet not one mention of his followers as described in the article 1. Many were attracted by the sense of joy, peace and commitment shown by Rawat's followers 2. Love flowed back and forth between him and his devotees 3. The premies were described as "cheerful, friendly and unruffled" and seeming "nourished by their faith". 4. To the 400 premie parents who attended, Rawat was "a rehabilitator of prodigal sons and daughters"

The following proposal addresses that imbalance and still has gives a great deal of prominence to Rawat's "mystique" (in order) -Maharaji, Guru Maharaji, Divine, Satguru, Perfect Master, followers, God, divine, charismatic, Divine, religious, cult. You can hardly say it's not adequately covered.

"At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru (lit. Perfect Master) to millions of Indian followers. Rawat gained further prominence when he traveled to the West at age 13 to spread his message. His claimed ability to impart direct knowledge of God attracted a great deal of interest from young adults but he was ridiculed by the media for his youth and his supposed divine status. Under his charismatic leadership, the Divine Light Mission (DLM) became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West, though it was sometimes described as a cult"

Let's se if we can make this right as we have done with para three. Momento (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

PatW (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)What YOU think is 'right' is to remove any negative tone (implied from the original sources) and to replace it with you and your Rawat supporter friends preferred re-write. This is all ugly, inexorable revisionism in my opinion. The repeated mentioning of Rawat's divinity claims is TOTALLY justified by contemporary sources , as are probably all the other 'imbalances' you seek to 'correct'. I don't care if this sounds like I don't have faith in your intentions. I think your mission here is contrary to the spirit of Misplaced Pages. And your self-confidence that you are 'making things right' is thinly disguised mocking of people who have frankly tired of resisting your highly biased editing spree. Do as you like. I'm just hoping someone, somewhere will take a look at your dodgy history here and put a stop to this retrograde behaviour.PatW (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The Lead is supposed to summarise the article, in this case the years from 1966 to 1973. Two sentences get Rawat from India to the US. One sentence covers how well his message was received by some and ridiculed by others. The second covers how quickly DLM took off and how some saw it as a cult. The major issues evenly covered.Momento (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Any objections as to the content of the proposal?Momento (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I have an objection. The claim "The Divine Light Mission (DLM) became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West" does not appear in the article. Therefore suggest -

"At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru (lit. Perfect Master) to millions of Indian followers. Rawat gained further prominence when he traveled to the West at age 13 to spread his message. His claimed ability to impart direct knowledge of God attracted a great deal of interest from young adults but he was ridiculed by the media for his youth and his supposed divine status. Under his charismatic leadership, the DLM was active in 55 countries by the end of 1973 although it was sometimes described as a cult". Momento (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Why "although" and not just "and"? I see no contradiction.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a hold over from the current sentence which talks of DLM as being a NRM. But maybe there is another way to introduce "cult". Suggestions?Momento (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe: "... by the end of 1973. It was sometimes described as a cult."--Rainer P. (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ooops. There is no mention of "although it was sometimes described as a cult" in the article.Momento (talk) 01:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

There is: Rawat has often been termed a cult leader in popular press reports, as well as anti-cult writings.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I should have been more specific. Not mentioned in the section we're discussing 1966-1973.Momento (talk) 09:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the "Media" section I have removed - "Rawat's last known press conferences was in 1973" - because its source is from 1976 and therefore cannot be a source for what has happened after 1976. And the editorial OR "often been termed a cult leader" is not supported by the sources, nor are Christian extremists suitable sources for "anti-cult" writings.Momento (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I remember this thing having been discussed lengthily a while ago. What happened to it?--Rainer P. (talk) 10:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

What thing?Momento (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The cult thing. Must have been in the Will Beback era.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A "cult" is what religious fanatics call non-believers.Momento (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal so far -

"At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru (lit. Perfect Master) to millions of Indian followers. Rawat gained further prominence when he traveled to the West at age 13 to spread his message. His claimed ability to impart direct knowledge of God attracted a great deal of interest from young adults but he was ridiculed by the media for his youth and his supposed divine status. By the end of 1973 the DLM was active in 55 countries and tens of thousands of followers has been initiated".

Comments on content please.Momento (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Administrator note: I don't honestly care all that much how the above discussion turns out (I do have an opinion, but it's not sufficiently strong that I really want to get involved), but everyone, especially you PatW, needs to cool it. I get that each "side" here is frustrated with the other, but it's not that hard to review what you're saying and remove the invective from your post before hitting the save button. Besides, you're far more likely to get what you're looking for if you can express some collegiality; it makes other people more willing to work with you as opposed to working against you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

So the proposal is -

""At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru (lit. Perfect Master) to millions of Indian followers. Rawat gained further prominence when he traveled to the West at age 13 to spread his message. His claimed ability to impart direct knowledge of God attracted a great deal of interest from young adults but he was ridiculed by the media for his youth and his supposed divine status. By the end of 1973 the DLM was active in 55 countries and tens of thousands of followers had been initiated".

I will make the change in 24 hours. Thanks.Momento (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Changed as per above, thank you.Momento (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Strong objections to edit of lede

The paragraph Momento changed in the lede doesn't accurately reflect the article nor does his current proposal. I'm highly tempted to revert the edit because concensus was not achieved prior to this edit, and it appears that Momento is displaying single editor ownership Misplaced Pages:OWN of this article, by railroading fellow editors, ignoring editor's objections, and by calling me names on this talk page in a threatening manner. Momento is not assuming good faith of editors. He refuses to discuss his proposals with others by insisting that his proposals are the only accurate and proper changes that can be possibly made, and by ignoring concerns of other editors that no changes in the lede need to be made.

Here's but one example of why Momento's edit does not accurately reflect 1) the article; and 2) the actual facts of this biography:

Momento's edit to the lede, paragraph 3:

"When Rawat turned sixteen he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement. The following May he married against his mother's wishes, which prompted her to disown him and appoint his eldest brother as head of the Indian DLM. Rawat retained control of the movement outside India and abandoned the religious aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable, replacing Divine Light Mission with Elan Vital. As his following increased in the 80s and 90s Rawat toured almost constantly. In 2001 he established "The Prem Rawat Foundation" to fund his work and humanitarian efforts and his message is now distributed in more than 88 countries. The TV series "Words of Peace" is transmitted via satellite and cable in six continents".

Section 1974-1983, paragraph 5

"His appearance on 20 December 1976 in Atlantic City, New Jersey, wearing a traditional Krishna costume for the first time since 1975, signaled a resurgence of Indian influence and devotion. During 1977, many returned to ashram life, and there was a shift back from secular tendencies towards ritual and messianic beliefs."

The above quote from the article is a fact. Momento is ignoring the fact that there was a huge resurgence, in all of the western countries, of devotion to Prem Rawat's divinity which he restarted in 1976, complete with all of the Hindu trappings, and this resurgence lasted until at least 1981. Those are the facts of this biography. Prem Rawat introduced his own divinity and demand for devotion in his NRM (New Religious Movement) when he first came to western countries. The fact is that those Indian trappings and religious rituals were present throughout the entire 1970s with the exception of the first 10 or 11 months of 1976. Following that Atlantic City program in December 1976, where Prem Rawat danced on the stage in a full Krishna costume with crown (I was there), there was an enormous resurgence of devotees' worship of Prem Rawat, which was fully encouraged by him and included a return to ashram life by many devotees. This is evidenced by the the 1979 through early 1981 DECA project in Hialeah, Florida (near Miami Beach) to completely reconfigure a B707 jet into a luxury executive jet. I was at the DECA project and everyone there worshipped Guru Maharaj Ji as their Lord of the Universe in a messianic manner.

Momento's edit to paragraph 3 absolutely does not accurately reflect the article and the factual biography of Prem Rawat, whether or not he believes that it gives proper "positive weight." Furthermore, Momento removed all of the citations that were in the previous lede paragraph 3 version!! This is outrageous editing, imo. I strongly object to Momento's edit, as well as his new proposal to edit paragraph 2. I ask that Momento self-revert because the current paragraph 3 does not reflect what the article states. I do not want to escalate using edit warring. Let's go back and redo this properly with concensus, assuming good faith. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The LEAD sentence SylvieCyn objects to is a summary of the time period from 1974 to 1983 described in the article by over 600 words. The events contained in the LEAD sentence - Rawat retaining control of DLM in the west after the split, his abandoning of the religious aspects and the replacing of DLM with EV - are the most important events of that period. I made a proposal, including removing the cites from the LEAD because they are in the article, made changes according to other editors suggestions, gave notice of the change and waited 24 hours before inserting it.Momento (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This is all in your opinion and not based in the reality of Prem Rawat's life. Congratulations, you're now the owner of this article. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Rawat retaining control of DLM in the west after the split, his abandoning of the religious aspects and the replacing of DLM with EV - are the most important events of that period, only for a current follower who is following the party line. This is complete POV editing. Surdas (talk) 07:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. An editor cannot determine content or its weight based on this kind of statement which is clearly an opinion. I don't want to get involved in this article and know nothing about the subject but saw this POV comment. (I was familiar with the arbitrations on this article) I'd suggest a self revert and more discussion, and if that doesn't bring some kind of agreement bring in more outside opinions, perhaps think about an RfC, or try a NB where the community at large can weigh in.(olive (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC))

Agreed. What is a NB?--Rainer P. (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Notice Board.(olive (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC))

My proposal and edit made two changes (in bold) to the long standing 74-83 sentence which was has been stable for years - "Rawat retained control of the movement outside India and later abandoned the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable". I removed "later" and corrected "Indian" with "religious" as per the article. I have re-inserted "later". In future, please give your content input when changes are being proposed rather than remaining silent until the changes are made and then complaining.Momento (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Its a good idea to take part in discussion if the concern is the content and its source. I agree completely. Some editors here are suggesting that opinion can never be a motivating factor for how that content is chosen and worded in the article. I was drawn in by that concern. I'll leave you to it.(olive (talk) 03:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC))

Orphaned references in Prem Rawat

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Prem Rawat's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Melton1986":

• From Teachings of Prem Rawat: Melton, J. Gordon The Encyclopedia Handbook of Cults in America. p.143, Garland Publishing (1986) ISBN 0-8240-9036-5 "The Divine Light Mission is derived from Sant Mat (literally, the way of the saints), a variation of the Sikh religion which draws significant elements from Hinduism. It is based upon a succession of spiritual masters generally believed to begin with Tulsi Sahib, an early nineteenth century guru who lived at Hathrash, Uttar Pradesh. It is believed that the person mentioned as Sarupanand Ji in Mission literature is in fact Sawan Singh, a prominent Sant Mat guru. In any case, Hans Maharaj Ji claimed a Sant Mat succession which he passed to Maharaj Ji. Maharaj Ji, as do many of the other Sant Mat leaders, claims to be a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God on earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration."
• From Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations: Melton, J. Gordon. Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America. New York/London: Garland, 1986 (revised edition), ISBN 0-8240-9036-5, pp. 141-145.

Reference named "ReferenceB":

• From Margaret Singer: San Francisco Chronicle, Tuesday November 25, 2003
• From 2010 Sahel famine: ACT Preliminary Appeal: Food insecurity in Mauritania due to Drought in the Sahel region AlertNet
• From Meditation: Ahimsa - The Science Of Peace: by Surendra Bothra 1987
• From List of new religious movements: Beit-Hallahmi 1993, p. 7.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Repaired some of the "orphaned refs".Momento (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Media section

This section is redundant. The only thing of value is - "In an interview in Der Spiegel in 1973, Rawat said, "I have lost confidence in newspapers. I talk with them and the next day something completely different is printed." which could go in the 1966 to 1973 section. The sentence about "the Divine Light Mission's 50-member public relations team" refers to a meeting at Millenium and is included to make it look as if Rawat had a "50-member public relations team"! DLM was active in 55 countries so that represents one representative from each country at a meeting at an international event of 20,000 people. The "often been termed a cult leader in popular press reports," is not supported by the sources cited and "anti-cult writings" are by an exorcist and a fundamental Christian, hardly a neutral source. I think it should be removed.Momento (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Geaves is a neutral source either. As a compromise we can delete all references of both of them. What do you think? Surdas (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

In my understanding, A source needs not necessarily be neutral, but reliable and competent. An encyclopedia must be neutral.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Bob Larson exorcises evil spirits over the radio and write books about rock music and Satanism, written from a Christian perspective. Ron Rhodes is a Christian fundamentalist who believes Catholicism is a cult. Therefore every non Christian religious organisation is a cult or worse to these authors. They are not suitable sources for this article.Momento (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed before a long time ago. What you are doing right now is following jossi's line. I don't think this should be a further issue. Read the archives. Surdas (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If the article has evolved since then, which it obviously has, this must also legitimately reflect in the lead section.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This article has some obvious errors that should be fixed. You can't use Larson and Rhodes as authorities on cults. Just like you can't use people like Larson as an authority on the Rolling Stones (you're bound to be able to find someone that says RS music is an evil vomit that has caused many innocent children to commit suicide) or Rhodes on the Pope. Their extreme views on others are irrelevant to a credible encyclopedia.Momento (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

So you deleted the cult sentence out of the lede already? I think what you are pursuing is indeed a white wash. I strictly oppose the way that you are proceeding in the article.Surdas (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I was happy to have "Under his charismatic leadership, the Divine Light Mission (DLM) became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West, though it was sometimes described as a cult" until I discovered that "the DLM became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West" didn't exist in the article. So then I went with "Under his charismatic leadership, the DLM was active in 55 countries by the end of 1973 although it was sometimes described as a cult" until I discovered that the source for "cult" was Larson and Rhodes, two Christian extremist and two newspaper articles over 40 years. And then I found that there wasn't a source for "Under his charismatic leadership, the DLM was active etc". So I had no choice but to toss that out as well. Now we are left with properly sourced facts that are in the article. It isn't my decision to remove those elements from the Lead it is Wiki policy and guidelines.Momento (talk) 08:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

again you have deleted material without concensus only based on your opinion, this seems to me your current pattern and should be reported.Surdas (talk) 10:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree Surdas. It's extremely concerning that Momento is removing a lot of material that took years (since 2004!) to establish and become stable. Momento is undoing that work without adequate discussion and without any concensus. Btw, I've read WP:Lead and there's nothing there that excuses this style of editing. I suggest Momento read WP:Ownership. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

In fact, the difference in the Lead between March and today is that it is precisely one word longer. So a lot of material has not been removed. What has happened is more sourced material has been added and unsourced and repeated material removed.Momento (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

i find it almost unbearable that a current follower is deciding what is a reliable source and what not.Surdas (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not deciding what is reliable or not. What I have done is notice that the source says "religious" not "Indian"; that there is no source for "DLM became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West", nor "Under his charismatic leadership", nor "though it was sometimes described as a cult". And added two sentences to cover the 30 years from 1982. And I would remind you and others that your comment "unbearable that a current follower is deciding etc" is a personal attack and "Personal attacks and harassment are contrary to this spirit, damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia, and may result in blocks".Momento (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

ok, i apologise for the follower , but it is a fact that you scratched the cult sentence in the article only based on your opinion and then amending the lead to it, saying you just followed the guidelines. Reminds me of Jossi who changed the policy rules for his conveniance and later relating to it.Surdas (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:LEAD.Momento (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we can find a compromise following an idea from user John Carter, who had some suggestions a little while ago concerning a to-be-created-manual-of-style for religious subjects. He suggested, if I remember correctly, to give information on their historic provenience along with disputed sources, to allow a clearer picture. I think, the "cult"-issue is historically relevant enough to be mentioned in the article, reasonably embedded, perhaps not necessarily in the lead. The article covers a lot of less notable issues, and if this one is left out, would continually be susceptble to reproach of POV. Suggestions?--Rainer P. (talk) 11:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

i think we can all remember that mentioning the cult leader in the lead was inserted by Jimbo Wales personally to make an important point, concerning Prem Rawat. It was relativated then further on, by concensus with the help from Will Beback and now it shall disappear into nothing. I suggest, we inform Jimbo about what happened to his entry and what kind of course the article has now taken. Surdas (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but remember: In science, to switch from evidence-based proceedings to eminence-based is usually considered a setback in quality. BTW, what happened to Maelefique?--Rainer P. (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

if you followed the ARB:com on WillBeback Jimbo was criticized for interfering and using his position.Momento (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The main reason "cult" was allowed in the lead was because DLM was correctly identified - "Divine Light Mission (DLM) became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West, though it was sometimes described as a cult". Once 'new religious movement' was removed because "the fastest growing new religious movement in the West" had no source, then "cult" had to go because it couldn't remain as the main description. The DLM article describes "the western movement was widely seen as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect or an alternative religion" and Geaves was the source of "the fastest growing new religious movement in the West". If editors are happy to have a full description of DLM in this article and Geaves comment then we could reinstate something like "Divine Light Mission (DLM) became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West, though it was sometimes described as a cult".Momento (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

How is: ... and tens of thousands of followers had been initiated. It became the fastest growing NRM in the West and was widely seen as a charismatic cult at the time. for the lead, and put the full account into the 70-73 section?--Rainer P. (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

you need sources and you won't find a source saying "widely seen as a charismatic cult".Momento (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Then it is not sourced properly in the DLM article as well. I meant it as a sort of roundup of Geaves's, Kent's, and Larson's statements, which are later sourced in the article.--Rainer P. (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Maybe I'm too tired to find the right balance between abstraction and precision - it's past 1 p.m. here. Good night!--Rainer P. (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

One reason why I have confined myself to editing the lead is to avoid the issues of adding or subtracting from the article (apart from the out of date "Interview" sentence). With the lead, the sources are either in the article or they're not. And the process of summarising the article for the lead reduces a large body of material to bare bones. I would be happy to edit the article with the co-operation of other editors to ensure major issues are covered and therefore eligible for the lead but I am not interested in a POV battle.Momento (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No disagreement there. When opposing parties realize they can be of use for each other, there is a chance for real advancement (Chinese wisdom).--Rainer P. (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead paragraph three

I cannot really find an item in the article that the lack of intellectual content in his public discourses refers to. It seems like a rather exceptional and unnecessary statement to me and, if mentioned at all, should be well sourced, and, at least well balanced by mentioning the overwhelmingly multitudinous distinctions.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The article does say "Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses" in the "Teaching" section based on the opinion of two sources. Kent who continues that while he "found Rawat's message to be banal and poorly delivered, his companions spoke about it glowingly" and Dutch sociologist Paul Schnabel who described Rawat as "a pure example of a charismatic leader". The main problem of course is Rawat offers an experience not an intellectual theory. It's rather like criticising a musician for not being an athlete. In the "Teachings of Prem Rawat" article, Hummel explains " His teachings were rich in metaphor and more concerned with practical applications than theory". Price says "He sees conceptual thinking as the main enemy of the direct religious experience which he claims can be obtained through the techniques of Knowledge". A reporter said "He spoke humbly, conversationally". And Geaves "Rawat speaks spontaneously, with an emphasis on an individual's subjective experience rather than on a body of theoretical knowledge, and he draws upon real life experiences, including his own, rather than on interpretations of the scriptures".Momento (talk) 11:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I had overlooked it. Still I think it is not discriptive for his teachings, but for his simple style, and therefore belongs rather into Leadership and Charisma. And unmediated in the lead it appears somewhat misleading. Opinions?--Rainer P. (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead para four

I propose removing "Prem Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses" because it is undue weight. Two sources are provided in the article. One says ", "The purest forms of charismatic leaders are currently Bhagwan and Maharaj Ji. This shows that personal qualities alone are insufficient for the recognition of charismatic leadership. The intelligent, ever-changing, and daily appearing Bhagwan is no less a charismatic leader than the materialistic, spoilt, and intellectually unremarkable Guru Maharaj Ji". Being intellectually "unremarkable" does not mean having "a lack of intellect" and does not refer to his "public discourses". The second source is Stephen Kent who wrote about his experience as a 22 year old, "I found his poorly delivered message to be banal...Riding home with a friend that evening in the back seat of a car, I listened incredulously as my companions spoke glowingly about the message that they had just received. In fact, they were so moved by the guru's words that they made tentative plans to return the next day to pay homage to him by kissing his feet". It is clearly inappropriate because a) "banal" doesn't meaning "lacking in intellect", b) omitting his description of the others in his quote changes his meaning, and c) more importantly it is completely unacceptable to put to opinion of one single 22 year old in the lead as if it has any importance what so ever.Momento (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

you can continue the whitewash as you please it seems. No neutral editor is interested to get engaged in this article. Happy POV pushingSurdas (talk) 05:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest reasoned discourse rather than attacking an editor. If you don't like something be specific and deal with that edit. Thanks. (olive (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC))

There are numerous neutral editors watching this article (two who have commented recently) and it seems they agree that putting the distorted summary of the opinion that a 22 year old held forty years ago into the Lead as the single description of Rawat's "public discourses" is giving it undue weight.Momento (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

numerous neutral editors? i have seen one who critised your POV pushing, but you don't care. I oppose to your edits, but you are just ignoring it, keeping on deleting and whitewashing the article, with your pseudo arguments. A 22 year old for example, wasn't this a youth religion/cult, who do you think fell for the con at that time, doctors, professors? Misplaced Pages is loosing if you are allowed to continue the way you are breaking the balance that existed in the article. Surdas (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

There are 431 people watching this page. Since you value professors, I imagine you'd be happy if I inserted this material from the article in the lead. "According to Professor Emeritus Dr. James Downton Rawat's students changed in a positive way, "more peaceful, loving, confident and appreciative of life".. Momento (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

How do you know there are 431 people watching this page? I don't know how this edit ended up without my signature, but I still want to know how Momento knows how many people are watching this page, given that WP:Watch "Privacy" section states that even administrators know who's watching pages. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you stop wasting your time Momento. When the community eventually wakes up to your heavily biased single-purpose editing this article will be most likely be reverted to it's former state (which a number of people agreed was quite stable). Quite rightly nobody seems to have the stomach to engage your taunts, endless straw-man arguments and thinly-guised revisionism any longer. Having myself wasted hours trying to make you see sense over the years (to absolutely no avail) I can see why. I guess your making up for lost time after your years ban. How pathetic.PatW (talk) 09:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)!

thanks for finding the right words. Momento is completely team work resistant Surdas (talk) 09:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from all those personal attacks. Good editors have been banned for less. We should try and remain on (or reach, to begin with) a strictly argumentative level. "Stability" is not really an argument, and it is instructive to read WP:Consensus.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

For goodness sake we've been reading all those WP guidelines for YEARS! We all well versed in that! Does it do the slightest good? No! Stuff all this preaching about "personal attacks". It just sounds like Jossi again - totally 'passive' aggressive and threatening but couched as carefully as possible in calculatedly correct but twisted Wikispeak. As if Momento is interested in any 'Consensus' whatsoever with anyone other than you!! Do you think his last rash of Prem Rawat revisionism was done with 'consensus'?? NO WAY! Also if you call Momento's endless blustering and POV pushing anything approaching 'argumentative' then you're wrong. He NEVER sensibly engages argument, he just sets up straw men and goes ahead and just does what the **** he pleases. PatW (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's hear your argument why the opinion of a 22 year old who saw Rawat once should by the sole opinion presented on Rawat's teaching in the lead rather than the opinion of Professor Emeritus Dr. James Downton who studied a dozen of Rawat's students for six years.Momento (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be more helpful if, when making arguments, that, instead of referring to a source as "...opinion of a 22 year old..." (or, as in the instance above you described a source "an exorcist") that you state the name of the source. Stephen A. Kent wrote a book that was published in 2001, not when Kent was 22 years old. Here's the lead paragraph from the wikipedia article on Kent's book, From Slogans to Mantras: Social Protest and Religious Conversion in the Late Vietnam War Era. From Slogans to Mantras

"From Slogans to Mantras: Social Protest and Religious Conversion in the Late Vietnam War Era is a non-fiction book by sociologist Stephen A. Kent. The book was published in both hardcover and paperback editions, in 2001. Benjamin Zablocki provided the foreword to the work. From Slogans to Mantras was cited by Choice as an Outstanding Academic Title that should be owned by every library."

The book is clearly a reliable source, is critically acclaimed, and the sentence stays. Personally attacking sources doesn't make them any less reliable only because one doesn't like what they have to say about a subject. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

So the way momento presents his arguments is based on deception? Surdas (talk) 07:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Surely the only way forward is for non-neutral editors to limit their activities here to the talk page. The idea of consensus was that, since this article's history has been one of followers being extremely dominant and pushy with THEIR agenda, things were supposed to be discussed here thoroughly first...and not just amongst followers. That hasn't worked since Momento has returned, pushing for, and making contentious, biased edits without proper agreement. I wholly concur with the person who has commented that aggressive single purpose editors like Momento should be stopped. He's already ruined any goodwill we all had. PatW (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Kent's book may of course be a reliable source for the things that he has actually dealt with in a scientific manner. Not everything from cover to cover in that book is to be used with equal dignity. This goes for all sources. If there is information available with more scientific weight, it should be considered accordingly. So please cool all that righteous indignation (in Germany there is a saying: Gerechte Empörung ist der Heiligenschein der Scheinheiligen. The pun gets lost in translation, but it means: Righteous indignation is the gloriole of the sanctimonious).--Rainer P. (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You've missed my point, I'm not suggesting Kent isn't a reliable source, I'm saying that there are many reliable sources who discuss Rawat's teachings and it is therefore undue weight to only have Kent's opinion in the Lead. But rather than add the opinions of Downton, Melton, Geaves, Galanter etc it is easier to have none.Momento (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps an agreeable solution for the lead could be something to the effect of: There have been divergent reactions from scientific authors?--Rainer P. (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

But that doesn't say anything. Clearly we can't allow Kent to be the only one to comment on Rawat's teachings and it would take a long time to get a satisfactory consensus. Let's leave all opinions in the article where they can be expanded on and various views expressed rather than just one view highlighted in the Lead.Momento (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it would serve to announce that divergent scientific views, which cannot be summarized shortly, are going to be mentioned in the article body. And it's a compromise. Besides, a tendency for polarised and strongly divergent reactions have been in a way characteristical for Rawat's public reception. That is why we have this consensus problem here.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Why are we even discussing this? Momento made the edit to the lead a couple of hours after he posted his proposal above. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I wish we were discussing this instead of all the bickering and sabre rattling that is being staged here. I believe we can find an agreeable compromise, and Momento's edit is, as anything, subject to change in the course of developement on a rational basis.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Please don't tell me I'm being irrational. I'm not bickering or sabre rattling either. My posts in this thread are quite reasoned and researched. And now this! The header for this section starts with Momento proposing removal of the one sentence. Three or 4 hours after his "proposal" he made the edit without discussion. I was assuming good faith and didn't bother to check the actual article until yesterday, when to my great chagrine and surprise, I found he had already made the edit. Stephen A. Kent's book is highly critically acclaimed by the ALA's (American Library Association) magazine Choice Choice, Current Views for Academic Libraries It's a division of the American Library Association (ALA) that reviews academic books for academic libraries. One cannot get a better endorsement for a reliable source. Here is the University of Alberta (Canada) academic page featuring prominent reviews of Kent's book From Slogans to Mantras: Social Protest and Religious Conversion in the Late Vietnam War Era. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

in fact rainer is supporting the behaviour of momento, being a follower himself he never reverted any deletion or change made by momento. Our protest against it remains with no impact whatsoever. It is almost like the good and bad cop tactic, as it has been practiced by Jossi, when using two or more accounts some time ago. The decision not to make edits without concensus is held up by former followers only.Surdas (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not think of you, Sylviecyn, when I made that remark, sorry. To me it appeared like some editors are hoping for a gullible Clint Eastwood to make their day. Still Momento's critique of solely featuring Kent's assessment in the lead section is worth being addressed, don't you agree? And surely we can find an agreeable wording for the lead, that covers what is said in the article. I made a proposal above, for starters. What do you think? And I am nobody's good cop or sock-puppet. Anybody can insert text, when it is an improvement. I usually hesitate to do so, because I am not as competent in your language as I wish I were. That's why I neither revert Momento's edits nor opponents'. And I am sure there is a better strategy for consensus than just stonewalling, when there is justifiable critique. In the end, as I understand from WP:Consensus, the better argument tops the desire for consensus. --Rainer P. (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

While I don't want to get involved on this page, I do hope to see it move in the direction of concrete attempts to deal with everyone's issues about the article, so Rainer's attempt to pull this discussion back on track seems a move in a positive direction. (olive (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC))

• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• Old requests for Biography peer review
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Low-importance Religion articles
• B-Class New religious movements articles
• Mid-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class Spirituality articles
• Low-importance Spirituality articles
• B-Class India articles
• Low-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject India articles
• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review