Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jayen466 (talk | contribs) at 00:12, 19 July 2008 (→More discussion: rpl to Sylviecyn, suggestion on how to handle Cagan). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

←Backlink to Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Divine Light Mission‎
←Backlink to Talk:Prem Rawat‎ User:Steve Crossin/medstatus

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.

• It has a very specific purpose, and edit warring on this page is unacceptable. Please cease doing so. While this is a place to discuss the mediation, it still is in my userpace, and the standard guidelines I have on my user talk page, such as civility, no personal attacks, and observing the three revert rule, still apply. Please respect these guidelines. Steve Crossin (contact) 20:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Issue/Discussion topic A

OK, leaping in joyfully here...in the article's "Following" section, the sentence "Outside the U.S., Paul Schnabel indicates a decreasing number of 150 DLM adherents, 15 of which living in a community setting, for Netherlands in 1980" is gibberish, but apparently informs us that there are only 150 adherents in the non-US world. If Schnabel is a reputable source (a pretty big "if") we need to know reliably what he wrote so he can be properly quoted. Rumiton (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Schnabel p. 53:

... de voor Nederland relevante cijfers ... begin 1981 ...		... numbers relevant for the Netherlands ... early 1981 ...
1.	Divine Light Mission - naar schatting hoogstens nog 150 aanhangers in Nederland, waarvan in 1980 ongeveer 15 in communaal verband leven. De beweging lijkt op zijn retour.	1.	Divine Light Mission - estimated at most 150 adherents remaining for the Netherlands, of which in 1980 approximately 15 lived in a community setting. The movement appears to be over the hill.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Francis. This is rather different to what the article currently says. Are we to change the sandbox version here? Steve? It's getting a bit confusing. Rumiton (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, change this sandbox version, as it's not protected. Just look at the banner at the top first. :) Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 15:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Issue/Discussion topic B: buzzwords

A few terms and policies are being tossed around in these discusions without clear applicability.

The terms "tabloid" and "editorializing" are used in without clearly definitions. Recently, "tabloid" was used to both argue for adding material and for deleting it. It appears that any fact which editors want to suppress is tabloidism, and having too many, or too few, facts is "tabloidesque". "Editorializing" has been used to condemn the addition of unchallenged facts. These vague, undefined or misapplied terms are not helpful to the discussions. Rather than using buzzwords editors should explain their arguments clearly.

I'm also concerned about the frequent use of two policy links: WP:REDFLAG and WP:UNDUE. Both of these are used with little or no rationale. If an editor feels the need to resort to either of these policies I'd ask them to please give a full explanation of their reasoning, rather than just citing the link or posting the text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Rationale for WP:REDFLAG are provided in policy, in particular: reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;. This would apply, for example, to a controversial claim made by a person that first describes a living person as being an incarnation of God, only to reverse himself/herself after a dispute, by making another controversial claim such as being "materialistic and despicable" about the same person (!!!!).
2. "Editorializing" is the device used by some editors to reduce encyclopedic content to something more appropriate for an op-ed or a hatched job. This has been pervasive behavior by some editors.
3. WP:UNDUE has been used by all parties of the dispute. That has been an issue all along and that is why we are engaged in mediation: to find common ground. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see unclarity in these Misplaced Pages policies. They are well-written and extremely clear in their applicability. "Tabloidism" may be harder to define, but it is easy to recognise. "Encyclopedic" is similar. Read a British afternoon paper (just about any one) then go read the Brittanica. Et voila! Rumiton (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The dictionary defines "editorializing" as:

• 1. To express an opinion in or as if in an editorial.
• 2. To present an opinion in the guise of an objective report.

Jossi's definition appears to be his own. Reporting actual facts is not editorializing.

As for "tabloidism", if you can't define it then don't use it as an argument.

Regarding WP:UNDUE, if someone is claiming undue weight they should be able to explain why it applies and what "due weight" woulfd be. It doesn't bring us any closer to agreement for an editor to shout "WP:UNDUE!" without explanation.

Jossi's interpretation of WP:REDFLAG appears incorrect to me. It's intended to prevent editors from inserting fringe claims. Events and comments that are widely-reported no longer trigger that policy. For example, if a celebrity marries a woman and announces she's the sweetest thing ever but then three years later divorces her and says she's a bitch, and of both of these comments are widely-reported, then it's not an extraordinary claim even though he is contradicting himself. The second point about REDFLAG is that even if a claim is extraordinary, if it has highly-reliable sources then it is still acceptable. News reports by major news organizations are not fringe claims.

Again, the problem with each of these four is when editors use them as buzzwords without taking the time or energy to explain precisely what they're complaing about and how to fix it. I suggest we entirely stop using "editorializing" and "tabloid" as arguments. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that good philosophic points can degenerate into slogans, and we all need to work to prevent this happening. Rumiton (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Editorializing: To present an opinion in the guise of an objective report Exactly my point.

WP:REDFLAG is quite unambiguous about what it means and it is not only about fringe claims. In BLPs, WP:REDFLAG applies even more stringently. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

if a celebrity marries a woman and announces she's the sweetest thing ever but then three years later divorces her and says she's a bitch: Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid, Will, and in a BLP we will not reproduce such stuff whatsoever. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is that it wouldn't be an exceptional claim. To use a different example there could be a spokesman for a product who says it's great, but then later decides the product doesn't work and denounces it. If the facts are well-established then it isn't an exceptinal claim. That covers matters where someone is using poor sources to assert something that is otherwise contradictory to previously-known positions. That's not the case here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is not about a "product", it is about a living person. And as such, any sources that are proposed to be used need to clearly demonstrate its relevance to the person's notability. "She was a bitch" ain't. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

None of that has to do with WP:REDFLAG. Notability or relevance are not the issues, "exceptional claims" is the issue. The simple fact that someone changes their mind and adopts a position opposite to an earlier one is a common occurence. David Horowitz was once a liberal and now he's a conservative. That doesn't mean that reporting reporting on his conservative actions or writings is making claims that are exceptional. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a common occurrence that sources reduce their credibility by reversing their previous opinions. We have to ask, "Will he do this again?" Nothing to do with exceptionality, everything to do with reliability. Rumiton (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you arrive at that conclusion? I would agree with you if a source flip-flopped on issues, but if, after time, a source changed his opinion, I think it is quite reasonable to accept the fact that time and further reflection could change one's opinion. People who don't change their minds despite everything going on around them are usually called extremists. In that light, it is probably more reliable to have a source that has changed his mind on issues. Of course, each source would have to be examined individually. We don't want someone who simply has a sudden obvious grudge against the subject being used. If George Bush comes out 10 years from now and says "We shouldn't have gone into Iraq, the reasons we had were insufficient", would you label him less reliable now (now being 10 years from now), or less reliable now? I think, obviously, you'd say he was more reliable now. Granted, George Bush is never going to be a reliable source for anything, it's just a hypothetical. -- Maelefique 15:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As interesting this debate is becoming, we are simply going off-topic. We are speaking here of an exceptional claim of a person X that one year describe third party Z as an incarnation of God which he/she venerated profusely, only to later on describe person Z as a spiritually despicable, and worse. That is a massive WP:REDFLAG that has to be acknowledged when editing the article of person Z, in particular when person Z is a living person. If the article was about person X, and the person changed his mind on a topic, that would be a very different story. For example, a politician's article can present prior and newer/competing viwepoints of the politician, and that would be perfectly OK. This is clearly not the case here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

<< If it were clear we wouldn't be having this discussion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

What? Care to explain what do you mean by that? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I contend you are making your own idiosyncratic definition of REDFLAG. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Please see this and act on it. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 21:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• I've posted a request for clarification, Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability#Exceptional claims: Is a change of heart exceptional? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• The initial response, from Brimba, confirms my interpretation of REDFLAG. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No, it does not, as you have missed to explain the exact circumstances and the context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't see how I left out anything important. You're welcome to go there and add whatever circumstances and context you think will give a different answer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• I think the important thing that was left out is the question of the testimony of NRM apostates. This is not just a "change of heart" it is a radical reversal of things they previously held dearest, a total emotional flip-flop which brings their intellectual stability into question. This ] is pretty interesting on the subject. Rumiton (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Leaving a new religious movement does not make one mentally unstable. But I can see why current followers would like to believe that. Zappaz even wrote the bio of Kliever. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Extremely offensive, Will. Extremely! And a strawman argument, nobody said anything of the kind. If you can't have a neutral point of view, at least pretend to. Rumiton (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• So it appears that the view on the WT:V thread is that Jossi's interpretation of WP:REDFLAG is incorrect. Moving forward, let's avoid using that interpretation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Issue/Discussion topic C: 'Opulent/Sumptuous lifestyle

Further discussion

• After reading this discussion, it seems clear there is an impasse here. Parties have shown that they are unlikely to budge on their position, and thinking about it, it seems clear that the current dispute is actually not regarding the wording of the final sentence of the lead section, it's a dispute over which sources should or should not be used. I can see no outcome that would end well here, and in my judgment, I think the best course of action is to continue on with the current proposal, and to discuss the sources used when proposals are written. I feel that's the best course of action here. Steve Crossin (contact) 15:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Steve, I disagree. I'm not sure which "current proposal" you're talking about. This discusion wasn't about any particular proposal. The next issue to address here is how and where to handle the issue of the subject's lifestyle. It's better to discuss and get a general consensus on that before making a specific proposal about the exact text to add. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Specifically, this was related to the discussion on Proposal 4, specifically, Proponents of Rawat have credited him with helping them find inner peace while criticisms have referred to a lack of intellectual depth in his teachings and an opulent, materialistic lifestyle.. Observing this discussion, I see the best way forward for proposals to be written, and then discussed depending on the sources, and the context that they are used in. Watching this discussion, which there has been a lot of, I haven't seen any room for compromise here, Jossi has made their viewpoint clear, as have you and other editors made your points clear. This is based on my observations of this discussion, and I feel that the best way forward, would indeed be to continue weorking on Proposal 4, as the section header says, this Issue/Discussion topic is on "Opulent/Sumptuous lifestyle", clearly related to Proposal 4. So continue to work on the proposals, as they have proved to be successful so far, and we can go from there. Steve Crossin (contact) 17:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, that was a part of the discussion. But we never had the chance to et to the meat of the discussion, which is: how shall we address the issues of Rawat's lifestyle and possessions in the body of the article. The main issue there, which can't be easily resolved in the proposal process, is whether to handle it chronologically (presumably when the criticims are made), in the reception section, or in a third place. We don't have an answer for that, and until we do it's not practical to make a proposal of specific text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Steve, unfortunately you just created a major problem when you wrote "Jossi has made their viewpoint clear". There is only one viewpoint that Jossi can make clear, and that is Jossi's. I have disagreed with him on many occasions, large and small, and 3 other so-called "pro-Rawat" editors I have asked to go away until they learn to edit properly. Your statement, if it truly represents your opinion, suggests a degree of bias that would make it impossible for you to continue as mediator of this article. "Tell me it ain't true." Rumiton (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, perhaps that statement was unclear, so let me clarify it. Editors here are divided on this issue, and editors have made their viewpoints very clear. Jossi, as well as other editors, have made their view clear. My statement was not intended to give the view that I agree with, or hold Jossi's opinion, above others, or whether I favour any opinion of one party over another. This was merely an observation, and I admit I could have worded it better. I don't favour any parties view here, I really just want the progress with the proposals to continue, I think we can agree that they have helped progress the mediation so far. Apologies if it looked like I was favouring a viewpoint of one editor over another, this isn't the case. Steve Crossin (contact) 15:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• OK, I see how it happened. The peculiar English usage of the personal pronoun in the plural to indicate politeness. We will speak of it no more. Rumiton (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Great, I'm glad that issue is settled. Steve Crossin (contact) 15:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Regarding the issues of personal wealth, I think the vital thing is context. The jeering quotes from the 70s press do not provide it, (they were talking to the lowest common denominator, which in those days was very low indeed) but with hindsight, we can. First, there is the Sant Mat tradition of treating the guru as an embodiment of the divine, including an elevated level of personal wealth. Second, there is the fact that renunciation was never a requirement for receiving Knowledge (though it was for those who chose to live in an ashram.) There are plenty of quotes to pick from Prem Rawat to the effect that he believes neither wealth nor poverty affect inner experience. Rumiton (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Now we're getting somewhere. OK, we do have sources about the tradition of keeping a guru in luxury, as well as sources that say Rawat's father was wealthy. We hav a variety of quotes, and can find more, from Rawat addressing the issues of his own wealth and possessions, as well as less relevant quotes on wealth in general. We have scholarly and journalistic sources that describe, circa mid-1970s, some of the possessions that Rawat had accumulated. Finally, we have the direct condemnations of the wealth. Based on the number and volume of sources discussing the issue, it clearly deserve substantial weight in the article. I'd guess it would be one long paragraph. Where to put it? Since most of the attention Rawar received was from about 1972 to 1982, and since virtually every source is from that period, it makes some sense to put it in the chronological section of the bio. The jets were acquired later, so they may require a line in a subsequent section if we can find good sources for them. Any objections to that plan? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Objections? Sure. (a) I do not see this to need "substantial weight in the article"; (b) Quotes from primary sources should not be used; (c) many of the journalistic sources that have been provided are dubious in their appropriateness for this article; ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

A) The matter has received substantial attention. The list of sources covering it compiled below isn't even exhaustive. "A long paragraph" was just an estimate for what it will take to summarize the sources , it could be more or less than that.

B) None of the sources listed are primary sources. Newspapers are secondary sources.

C) There many be some sources that are worse than others. Jossi has already said that we shouldn't get into discussing sources until we have text and can see how the sources are used. None of the sources are off the table.

D) Does anyone object to putting this into the 1970s chronology, rather than the "reception" section or elsewhere? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of this material should go in the "Reception" section under criticism from Christian clergy. And we can't ignore the criticism about his diet, weight, skin, voice, childish games etc - all of which are well reported.Momento (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Momento, what does this material have to do with criticism from Christian clergy? As for your second comment are your serious or are you being facetious? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Pilarzyk (1978) indicates "youth culture from a decidedly leftist political ideology" as a source for these types of criticism. Precisely why the list of sources below is useful. Debunks unfounded POV-pushing à la "should go under criticism from Christian clergy."

If you want to make contributions to the content of the "Reception" section /Proposal6 would be the appropriate place. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Francis. I didn't even know there was a Proposal 6, I've put it on my watchlist. Good point about the leftists, the comments should be attributed to them.Momento (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think Francis is misreading Pilarzyk, who says: The youth culture's response to the DLM was somewhat ambiguous, combining indifference with some instances of overt hostility. Its most visible response came from media accounts by youth culture publications.2 Most of these responses were made from a decidedly leftist political ideology. Such criticisms usually focused upon the alleged phoniness of the "blissed-out premies" (followers of the guru), the "hocuspocus" aspects of the meditation, and the "materialistic fixations" and the physical condition of the guru (Reed, 1973; Kelley, 1974; Levine, 1974; Baxter, 1974). These accounts commonly pondered the authenticity of conversions of past politicalactivists who became premies. Others questioned the use of movement funds (Kelley, 1974. Morgan, 1973).
• It appears to me he's saying that among the youth culture's responses the overtly negative ones came from a leftist ideology, not that all criticisms of this type came from youth culture. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

-> Neither did I imply that. I'm careful with my words: I said as "a" source (and that's what he does...). Momento's novelty of switching the "exclusive Catholic clergy origin" POV he's been proclaiming for as long as I can tell without a blink of an eye to exclusively "leftists" as those whom it should *all* be attributed to shows his methods, not mine.

There's a broad base for the contention regarding Rawat's all but frugal lifestyle, ranging from Dutch sociologists teaching at a Catholic university, to US leftist underground press throwing pies. And the mainstream US press (NYT, TIME, Newsweek, NYRB,...). And Dutch somewhat leftist theology students (Haan, not even listed below), and 21st century secondary and tertiary sources in English, and whatnot. And secondary sources covering press reports about the "materialistic fixations" and the physical condition of the guru. More than enough coverage from a variety of sources including a "truckload" reliable ones, to consider comments on Rawat's broad lifestyle a viable topic for the lead section of the article, imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

We are already including a sentence about the descriptions of "materialistic" in the lead. We are also considering including aspects related to his youth. What else is needed in the lead? Descriptions from pornographic, glamour magazines that called him "fat" (or worse(? Forget it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Momento is the one who's proposing adding material on Rawat's physical condition, etc. I think that simply referring to criticism of the "luxurious" lifestyle is sufficient for the intro. The current question is what to include in the body of the article, and where to put it. I propose we put it in the currently-titled "Coming of age" section, where we already discuss the Malibu house. Momento seems to want it somewhere in the "Reception" section, but it isn't just about the criticism of his wealth, it's about the facts of his wealth. I'd rather keep the critical viewpoints to a minimum and stick to the simple facts as much as possible. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding physical condition in derogatory way, of a living person is certainly not a wiki way. I agree with jossi --Taxed123 (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course, but I think I can see what Momento is getting at. If you look at criticism aimed at western spiritual leaders, eg recent Catholic Popes, you see things like "They didn't meet with the Dalai Lama," "They failed to acknowledge the claims of the Eastern Church," "They tried to ignore the clergy abuse crisis." Intelligent and valid stuff with two sides to it, nothing about "They wore silk robes," "They lived in palaces," "They travelled by personal jet," "They were overweight." This is the stuff that passes for criticism of Prem Rawat. The issues are rightly classed as insults, and rather petty ones. If any one of them (wealth) is significant, maybe they all are. Rumiton (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not for us to judge which criticisms are reasonable and which are not. If anyone thinks the Catholic Church has never been criticized for the opulent style that its top clergy indulge in then its obvious they've never studied its history. This is widely reported material, discussed by both journalists and scholars. It'd be a failure of NPOV to omit it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Show me where this is present on Pope ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The closer analogy is OSHO. See OSHO#Rich man's guru. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

See also Pope Benedict XVI#Attire. But let's focus on this topic, shall we? Based on the lack of any reasoned arguments to the contrary, the "Coming of age" section appears to be the best place to cover this issue. I'll draft a proposal for a paragraph to be placed there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The Attire section you allude to above is almost entirely praising, and the small hints of criticism are refuted at length by pro-papal sources. The effect is vastly different from the one you constantly try to create here. And if you really believe that "It's not for us to judge which criticisms are reasonable and which are not" then all the criticisms should go in; youth, appearance, wealth, weight and so on. I shall add them to a new section. Rumiton (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've asked you once in the last 24 hours to stop making uncivil remarks, and now you're coming close to making another. Comment on the edits, not the editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I do not see any such personal attack in that comment. It may be challenging your editing pattern, and that is entirely appropriate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I said the assertion is close to being uncivil. Your opinion is noted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

See User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal7. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting we should list all the car models Rawat owned? We don't even do that for rap stars, reliable sources attesting to Ferraris etc. notwithstanding. And we do mention that donations enabled him to live the lifestyle of a millionaire. He is not notable for being a car collector. Jayen466 21:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Could you please join the discussion at User Talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal7? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Rawat is indeed notable for being a car owner, based on a review of the coverage of him and his cars. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. PR is not notable for that, sure, some newspaper a porno magazine and a glamour magazine wrote about it, so what? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

How many newspaper and magazine articles about him from the 1970s omit mention of the cars? Very, very few, by my reckoning. It is an element of his notability and his public image - the boy guru with the Rolls Royces. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If he were not notable for his insight into personal peace, nobody would take any interest in the car collection he once apparently had. That is the subject this article needs to be centered on, everything else is entirely peripheral. Rumiton (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The subject is not notable for his "insight into personal peace". He's notable for having a following that believes in his "insight into personal peace". A following that, among other things, indulges his taste in expensive cars. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Copied from article talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Will, just to review the existing mentions of his luxurious lifestyle, we have:
  1. "sumptuous lifestyle" in the lede,
  2. "jewelry and wristwatches worth an estimated total of US$27,000 to $80,000"
  3. "contributions from his Western devotees, which made it possible for him to follow the lifestyle of an American millionaire"
  4. "the property, which by 1998 was valued at $15 million"
  5. "critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers"
  6. "fat 15-year-old with pie in his face ... and a Rolls-Royce ... who was arrested for jewel smuggling"
  7. "money was increasingly diverted to Rawat's personal use"
• Many if not all of these have been implemented with consensus. I appreciate that there may be a POV that basically assumes that Rawat has defrauded people by making false promises, and that he has lined his own pockets with their money. However, I would not like to see this POV – and that is what it is – take over this article. The fact is that many people have had an experience through contact with his teachings that they feel grateful for, and that they feel adequately recompensed by their meditative experience which has changed the quality of their lives in a way that they feel is profound. Now, I quite like P. Diddy, though I have never bought one of his records. But if millions of people do, and feel enriched by his music, and he is worth half a billion dollars as a result, that is fine and dandy by me. I don't expect his Misplaced Pages article to inform me as to what model toilet he has installed in his home, based on his ill-gotten gains from music that serves to corrupt our youth, that he refused to eat from polystyrene plates at the BBC, or that the Daily Mirror reported that Veuve Cliquot isn't good enough for him. If I thought he was a shallow, immoral gangster, and my objective was to characterise him as a despicable human being, I could gather all this sort of tabloid ad-hominem gossip together and put it under "Criticism" in his article, arguing that it has all been reported by "reliable sources", and forget all about the fact that he is an artist. The same with this dude here – AFAICS, he is first and foremost a teacher of meditation. Not everyone's bag, doesn't have to be, just like P. Diddy's music, but both arguably have enriched a lot of people's lives. I would like to see a fair article for this subject. Jayen466 22:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• The topic is discussed in various aspects because various aspects are notable. We're just reflecting the viewpoints expressed in reliable sources. There is an enormous difference between the P. Diddy of the 2000s and the Guru Maharaj Ji of the 1970s so the comparisons don't really hold. Rawat's teachings are covered in a separate article. His various organizations are covered in three or more articles. The biography isn't about his teachings, his following, or his organizations - it's about the person. The person was detained for a customs and tax investigation. The person accumulated several of the most expensive cars on the market while still a teenager. The person had a stroing of expensive private ariplanes. The person had expensive homes in several cities. These are among the details reported about the person. As for criticism, editors here have been of different minds. Some editors have said that listing the expensive assets isn't a criticism, it's just a description, and I tend to agree. They are unusual, and worthy of note, just like we note that the Pope is the ruler of a country and inhabits an ornate palace. There is nothing unfair about summarizing the most commonly reported facts about a subject. It'd be a bizarre omission if we didn't mention OSHO's Rolls Royces, and it's equally inappropriate to omit Maharaj Ji's Rolls Royces and other cars, as they were part of his public image in his heyday. Fair treatment is afforded by following NPOV, and by including all significant points of view. NPOV, and fair treatment, require that we summarize the material so frequently mentioned in newspapers, magazines and books, the same media that made the subject notable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• I must add further differences between P. Diddy and the subject. Sean Combs makes the bulk of his income from selling tangible goods, CDs or clothes. People don't look to him as their lord, and he doesn't ask for complete obedience. Sean Combs never asked people to turn over their fortunes to live in houses devoted to obeying his teachings. The relationship between guru and follower, and between rock star and fan, are significantly different. It's practically offensive, in my opinion, to even compare them in this way. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • So, that is the issue? Finally I and others can get to understand where you are coming from. I can now appreciate that you may have a certain bias as it relates to the Guru-shishya tradition, and while you are entitled to your biases and opinions (as we all do), our arguments should not be based on these biases and or opinions. (FYI, PR never asked anyone to turn "their fortunes"). In reading Jaen's comments about what we have in the article already, I see no need to add anything more, that material covers the substance of what is needed in an encyclopedic article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
    • So that's the issue? Finally, I and others can understand where you are coming from. You think there is no difference between PR and a rockstar? I agree with Will, that is an offensive comparison. After all this time, if you are only now coming to grips with the problems many people have with Prem Rawat's ideas, well, it certainly explains why there's been so much time wasted before now editing these articles, you simply didn't understand the issues. Hopefully, this has cleared things up and we can look forward to great progress in the near future. As for your suggestion that Prem Rawat never asked anyone to turn their fortunes, that's just wrong. Downton, p. 170 "people were encouraged to invest and sacrifice...and to give in any way they could...it was common in 1971-72 for Mahatmas to encourage personal offerings, by way of donations of money and valuables". Please don't waste our time with the "Mahatmas said it, not PR" argument again, unless that's really the best you can do. Can you honestly sit there and tell people that PR expected complete obedience and encouraged donations of all they could, but didn't think people would give up "their fortunes"?? You can't have it both ways, no matter how much you'd like to. -- Maelefique 14:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Hello Maelefique and welcome back. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Hi and thanks, but I never left, my job isn't to sit here and do PR for PR. I've been paying attention, but time constraints have been limiting my time spent on this project and I didn't feel the need to say anything until your <insert your own word/s here> comments above. -- Maelefique 17:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• I don't know what Joosi means by a "certain bias". I'd like him to explain what this purported bias is. As for turning over fortunes, there are numerous sources that talk of people turning in their trust funds and inheritances. More to the point the application to join an ashram was apparently four pages long - two of the pages devoted to disclosing financial information. Once disclosed, would-be members were pressured to turn over their assets before they could join. Members were pressured to take out personal loans in order to turn the money over to the movement. As for Jossi seeing no need to add anything more to the article, he's been saying that since 2004 so I don't think he's a good judge of the quality of the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• • How many people who accepted PR as their teacher joined ashrams and how many did not? Was joining an ashram compulsory, or voluntary? What are these "numerous sources"? Answer these questions and you will understand the lack of grounding for your argument. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • And I have not been saying "since 2004 not to add anything more to the article". That is just undeserving of a counter argument. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • Do you really want answers to those questions? Do you really not know already? (seems to me they are/were in the articles already, you should read them!) And do you really think that compulsory or voluntary is a non-biased question? Cults and NRM's often exert a force of will on their members, which is later used to deny the actions of the group as completely voluntary from their members, this is grade 8 stuff, come on. Or did you want to deny PR had any charisma as well, and ask what are "numerous sources" for that too? -- Maelefique 19:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
      • yes, sure, brainwashing, coercion, blah blah blah. Read DIMPAC and read whhat scientists say about these theories. You can also read this excellent book: The Politics of Religious Apostasy≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• ONCE A FOLLOWER receives knowledge, he can ask to join an ashram — typically a big old house with sparkling windows, picnic benches in the dining room, a "satsang" room, shared chores and crowded bedrooms. The devotee fills out an application for "personnel" with much more detail than the usual employment application. Besides questions about skills, education and arrests, two of the application's four pages ask for minute financial information, such as conditions attached to any trust funds, obligations on cash value of insurance policies, assets and mortgages.
  • "The guru who minds his mother", By MALCOLM N. CARTER, AP. 11/4/73
• I don't recall ever reading about P.Diddy setting up ashrams and requesting detailed financial information from his fans. Perhaps someone can find a source for that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Garson said one method used to balance the budget is asking rich premies — those who have recently become devotees — for donations preferably their entire savings. He said one woman, Darby McNeal of Canada and her $400,000 trust fund, is a good example of that. "Bob Mishler, the mission's executive director, talked Darby into signing over power of attorney shortly after she joined," said Garson, who says he was instructed to collect the money for the mission. According to Garson, the mission has been given several trust funds and several families, ineluding Miss McNeal's, are contesting the action.
  • "Growing Pile of Unpaid Bills Beneath Guru's Spiritual Bliss", Deborah Frazier, Denver (UPI) 3/23/75
• Does anyone have a source for P.Diddy's manager talking fans into signing their trust funds over to the singer? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• But there are only a handful here today, largely because a memo has been circulated directing all premies to look for jobs during the Christmas season in order to make up the organization's considerable debt. In normal times the DLM's $250,000 monthly operating budget is met through gifts from wealthy premies (at least one premie has donated a trust fund of over $100,000), the income from ten Divine Sales rummage stores across the country and several other small businesses ("Happy People Make Good Workers," reads the advertising handout for Divine Painters, Inc.) and the salaries of the 1200 premies who live in ashrams, most of whom hold outside jobs and must hand over their paychecks to the Mission. However, the expense of putting on Millennium has left the Divine Light Mission several hundred thousand dollars in the hole (aside from the $75,000 Astrodome rental fee, DLM officials refuse to divulge the costs of the event), necessitating the emergency measure.
  • "When The Lord of All The Universe Played Houston", Rolling Stone, March 14, 1974
• Does P. Diddy ask his fans to take on extra jobs when he's short on cash? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• So what? Some people joined the ashrams in the US. So what? some people gave large donations. So what? Nonsensical bias. Diddy sales CDs. PR sells nothing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Will wrote, Rawat's teachings are covered in a separate article. His various organizations are covered in three or more articles. These are, as I understand it, break-out articles created to treat these topics in further depth, and from additional angles. But, as the source of Rawat's notability, they should still feature prominently in the article on Rawat himself, with a {{main|}} template referring the reader to the more detailed articles.
• The person was detained for a customs and tax investigation. It is excusable for a newspaper to report this, and not to report that he was subsequently cleared, and an apology issued to him by the Indian government. As Misplaced Pages editors, however, I believe we should not mention the former without the latter.
• It'd be a bizarre omission if we didn't mention OSHO's Rolls Royces, and it's equally inappropriate to omit Maharaj Ji's Rolls Royces and other cars, as they were part of his public image in his heyday. I think the cases are slightly different. First, Osho's was a world record-breaking collection, unlike Rawat's, which was pretty standard for an American celebrity. Secondly, Osho made a point of having publicity pictures of his absurdly large fleet of Rolls Royces sent out to the press; he claimed, on the record, that he deliberately used them to get a rise out of people. Hence you'll find references to them in practically all scholarly accounts. As for Rawat, I believe he had no interest in talking about his cars and did not ascribe any role to them in his teachings; it was the press that was interested in his private wealth, scholars rather less so. I don't mind the article saying somewhere that there was considerable media interest in his wealth, and his collection of luxury vehicles. Perhaps some scholarly source can be found that has mentioned it. But there is a difference between summarising the press POV and writing our article from that POV.
• Now, as for P. Diddy, the link posted above, based on a Daily Mirror story IIRC, states:

  P Diddy shocked nightclub bosses by demanding £500,000 of freebies for his party.
  
  The music mogul, who is touring the UK this week, reportedly insisted London's The Collection Club provided luxury cars and £150,000 in expenses.
  
  The Collection Club, who offered to host Diddy's after-show party for free tomorrow (27.03.07), were stunned by the request for a £77,000 chauffeur-driven Masarati Quattroporte, £240,000 Rolls-Royce, £287,000 Mercedes Maybach and three black SUV vehicles.
  
  Diddy was offered a £3,000-a-night six-star Knightsbridge hotel suite, but his staff insisted on seeing photographs of the three bedroom apartment before checking in.
  
  The club planned to serve Veuve Cliquot champagne to 200 guests when they arrived and Cristal champagne to the VIP area all night - at a cost of £100,000.
  
  However, Diddy demanded £300,000 worth of Krug champagne.

  Now, $500,000 and $150,000 “expenses” for attending one’s own party, all of which is paid for by someone else, ain’t bad for one night either, is it?
• It's practically offensive, in my opinion, to even compare them in this way. No offence intended. In my view, both have a lifestyle product that people are free to "buy", or not. We are not here to condemn either of them, just write an encyclopedia.
• Most religious movements, and their leaders, live off members’ contributions of one sort or another. Scientology charges people hundreds of thousands of pounds to progress up the bridge to freedom. It is still recognised as a religion in a great many countries, including the U.S., who castigate dissenting nations in the name of religious freedom if they dare imply that it is just an abusive business. The reason is respect for Scientologists’ religious beliefs, and the guarantee of the freedom to espouse religious beliefs that other people may find silly. These are freedoms that have not come easily. Lest we forget, the Catholic Church, for centuries, levied a lifelong tithe from each member of the population, without any element of choice; as a citizen of a Christian country, you had to pay whether you were a Christian or not, and if you were a heretic, you risked being burned at the stake. In some muslim countries apostasy is still punishable by death. I believe religious freedom, and the freedom to not believe, are preferable to those scenarios.
• Lastly, the cite to The Guru Who Minds His Mother appears wrong; I’ve read the article and cannot find that passage in it. The article quoting Garson also quotes him as saying that

  "Most of cannot hold a job that pays more than $2 an hour and then there are those in the Ashrams - those who work for the guru alone - who total 572 and are totally supported by the mission," he said."

  I seem to remember the fact that the ashrams were operated at a loss to the DLM came up before in our discussions. From that POV, the suggestion that people get jobs to help pay for their own upkeep does not sound all that unreasonable to me. --Jayen466 00:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • OT (I lived in an ashram for several years in Israel, and we hardly had enough $$ to cover our own costs, as many people did not hold any well paying jobs... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC))

• I don't know why this comparison between Sean Combs and Prem Rawat is being pursued. The financial relationships between a singer and his promoters, agents, and fans, and between a guru and his followers are simply not comparable.
• Different people are notable for different things. Churchill and Eisenhower were both painters, yet less space is devoted to painting in their bios than in the bios of their contemporaries Picasso and Pollack. On the other hand, there is relatively little in the artists' biographies about their political or military activities. Eisenhower is notable as a general and a president, not as a painter. It's not for us to second-guess history and say that his painting is where the article should focus. Rawat is notable because he was noted, and he was noted among other things for having a fleet of the most expensive cars while still a teenager.
• Conflicts over religious asceticism versus opulence go back at least to the Reformation. Obviously the subject was a notable example of the spread of Indian religious traditions into the West in the 1970s. One of those traditions was the luxurious support of the guru. Many westerners thought that a holy man (boy) riding in a luxury limousine was unusual enough to report about. All we can do is summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.
• Cars played an important part in the subject's spiritual expressions in the 1970s. Many sources dwell on the way in which he would use automobile-related analogies in his satsangs. It was explained by supporters that he was using the vernacular metaphors of his time, just as Jesus spoke about fishing and nets. So this isn't just about finances, it's also information relevant to his spiritual beliefs.
• The cars are not just "pieces of tin". The period of the mid-1970s saw a burdensome debt on the DLM, the subject's movement in the U.S. At the same time that it was still owing money from the Millennium festival it bought a car for "ceremonial purposes" that cost a $22,000 (over $100,000 in 2007 dollars). The movement thought that buying another luxury car was a priority. It's not an indictment of the subject, it's a description of the history of the man and his movement. That's what biography is all about.
• To recap: the subject was reported in many newspaper articles to have a fleet of luxury cars. The subject was asked about the cars over and over by the press. The subject referred to cars in his own spiritual talks. The purchase and registration of the cars was a subject of investigation by the IRS and State of Colorado. I'd further note that we aren't mentioning lesser indulgences, like gold watches, quadrophonic stereo equipment, clothes, and food. This is focused on only the most significant assertions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, then let us have one strong, solid, unmissable reference to the fact that he was and is wealthy, that he had a Rolls Royce and other luxury vehicles at his disposal, that the media were very interested in that, and be done with it. We could expand the millionaire lifestyle sentence, appending a corresponding mention. Or better still, let's have a "Media" section in Reception and outline the main points of focus of media reporting. But please no listings of half a dozen car makes and models! :-)
• Generally, what an encyclopedic BLP should be about is not primarily determined by what newspapers have reported. Scholarly treatments have a clear priority anchored in policy. Jayen466 13:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Heresy to some, Jayen, but I for one concur entirely. :-) Rumiton (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break (Guru Puja)

• And though my mentioning this has never affected things before, and though it might be hard to understand in 2008, the Indian ashram system was (still is in India) a celebate, renunciate lifestyle of choice. If you wanted to be there, you gave up your money. The money people had on entry, and might have earned while there, went towards keeping the whole system going. And the ashrams on the whole lost money. Rumiton (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Rumiton - can you clarify? Are you saying that there are followers of the subject living in ashrams devoted to him in India? Also, you'd earlier said that this material needs context, including mention of a tradition of supporting gurus in luxury. I can't find the source for that, though I recall seeing it before. Can you find the source for that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • There certainly are. The ashram lifestyle remains highly respected in India, for all its unsuitability in the west. I know of at least two very large ashrams, each covering, I think, hundreds of acres. I attended an event held at one of them some years ago, attended by around 250 000 people, and since then there have been larger. The Indian DLM, or RVK, does not go in for public statements in English very much, so I don't know how these figures could be confirmed. I think the article has always been misleading in its implication that the Indian side of things died out when his mother took control of the Indian DLM, though I do not know exactly how things developed there. In Indian history it is considered that the best rulers were kings that were also high devotees or spiritual masters. King Ashok was the model. It is considered the ideal form of government. Rumiton (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    • We should find a way of expressing that better in one or another article. Also, do you recall the source that discusses a tradition of supporting gurus in luxury? You mentioned it earlier in this thread. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    • It comes under Guru Puja, treating the guru as a manifestation of god and making offerings to him/her to sponsor humility and spiritual insight. Offerings are proportional to the amount of wealth the devotee (student) has, so a rich student might well offer a house or luxury car, a poor student perhaps a flower or piece of fruit. And as I said, the idea that spiritual leaders should never be wealthy or powerful is almost purely western; in India wealth in the hands of the enlightened is considered the best place for it to be. Rumiton (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
      • That's what I thought, but I can't find any source for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

<<< "GURU PUJA" by Mahatma Umesh Dhar in THE GOLDEN AGE No. 9, July 6 - 27, 1974, p. 4 (this source is however in DLM context - and the URL, well, um, not OK RS-wise but it's all I've got) --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Yes, as you say, primary and unacceptable here for a host of reasons, but not unrepresentative. The mahatma is expressing the traditional Indian view regarding sants, here translated with the false cognate saints. Rumiton (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Primary sources are usable, they just require special care and shouldn't be interpreted. However I recall a scholarly paper on the support of gurus, perhaps in the Sant Mat tradition. Do you Have any idea about that, Rumiton? When you mentioned the idea previously, what were you thinking about? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Will is correct. I don't know why this comparison with a singer is being used. I find it quite odd that when PR was compared to some inspirational speakers there was mild outrage at the comparison, but being compared to a peer of Brittany Spears isn't generating any indignation at all. Will is also correct that PR's use of wealth has been a fairly major issue in his publicity/notoriety and that should be clear in the record. I do not believe that one sentence to the effect of "the media reported he had expensive cars" suffieciently addresses that issue. Especially given the financial woes suffered by many followers, and what seems to be a subsequent lack of help from PR and his organisations. On the other hand, I would agree that we do not need a make and model break-down of cars, unless they are much more exclusive than just Rolls, Bentley, etc. Ie, if Enzo Ferrari had presented him with a unique model, or something like that (I'm not saying that happened). -- Maelefique 15:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• The draft text is being discussed at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal7. Regarding Jayen's question about the quote from the Carter AP article, I copied the text straight off the page. I'd be happy to send it to anyone who emails me a request. As for scholars, no scholar has written a biography of the subject. At most they include brief biographic sketches as background for their discussion of whatever aspect of the subject or his movement that they're discussing. The only hiqh quality, 3rd-party biography that I'm aware of is the Current Biography Yearbook, 1974. It's excellent and I recommend it to anyone interested in this topic. It devoptes more space to the issue then anyone is proposing to do here. As for the particular cars, details are what make biographies interesting. The makes of cars were specifically mentioned in numerous sources, and some particualr makes were mentioend again and again. It's only those most frequnetly mentioend that are in the proposal. The only particular model of note is the Mercedes-Benz 600, an enormous limousine produced in limited numbers and used by heads of state. Simply saying that he owned expensive cars would not properly express the matter. The proposal is not limited to mentioning his cars though. It brings together material already in the article elsewhere, such as the criticism of his lifestyle from his mother and others, his planes and his pilots license. It would be incorrect to put this in a "media" section, because it wasn't just the media who commented on the matter. Please re-read the sources section below, particularly the later citations which are mostly from scholars, and you'll see that this was an issue that reverberated widely. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Re the Carter article, just to be sure we are talking about the same thing: the title is "The guru who minds his mother", the quote is "ONCE A FOLLOWER receives knowledge, he can ask to join an ashram ...". I was able to find two copies of an article with that title and attributed to Carter online; neither copy includes that passage, for whatever reason. Jayen466 14:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The version that I quoted is from Stars and Stripes. Individual newspaper editors typically write their own headlines for wire service articles, and trim the article copy to fit the available space. This version seems to be the longest. I'd be happy to send you a copy. It's one of the longest profiles of the subject, so it's a good resource. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I've mailed a copy to Jayen. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Received. The online copies were truncated, so Will's quote was quite correct. Jayen466 20:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• I posted this below, but I'm going to repost it here. Jayen has said, if I understand his point, that this is essentially cruft and that we should be paying attention to what scholats say instead of what journalists say. Here's what two eminent scholars, Bromley and Shupe, have written:
  • As a result of some overly ambitious projects designed to spread its message, Divine Light Mission has faced severe financial difficulties. Despite these problems the Guru Maharaj Ji was continued to maintain an extremely affluent lifestyle, complete with mansion, limousine, and expsensive, fashionable clothing. According to some reports, during the mid-1970s the guru was receiving five hundred dollars per day for his personal expensies. Some premies, according to reports, decided thair guru needed his own private Boeing 747 , and Maharaj Ji responded with delight at the idea. However the guru's lavish lifestyle has been the source of considerable controversy and even defections among premies due to Divine Light Mission's precarious financial condition. It is fair to conclude that Maharaj Ji comes closest to fitting the anticultists' sterotype of a leader living in luxury at the expense of his followers.
• The assertion that "the guru's lavish lifestyle has been the source of considerable controversy and even defections among premies" is a scholarly one. It's not just some tabloid topic that wasn't important. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That material is neutral, scholarly and and a summary of it would be much superior than all the other stuff that you are trying to push through in in Proposal 7. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Jossi. What you have brought now, Will, is an encyclopedic source. I would encourage you to use it. Jayen466 13:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good source and I've added it to Proposal 7. However all of the sources are suitable for this encyclopedia, even the newspapers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the name of Bromley and Shupe's source? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please assume good faith. Making proposals isn't the same as "pushing" stuff, and Proposal 7 is neutral. The reference is to Bromely & Shupe, Strange Gods, 1981, Beacon Press, Boston. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Proposas 7 is not neutral, as it is described in WP:NPOV in the context of the whole article as it stands now, and dismisses the potent arguments made here, about which no counter arguments that have any standing have been made. As per the request to AGF, I think that it has become extremely difficult. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Fron "Strange Gods". page 19: Strange Gods demolishes the hysterical anticult position (but not the unhysterical anticult position) which considers all cult leaders to be greedy charlatans who brainwash their subjects to such an extent that they become mindless automatons, obeying robotlike the leader’s every command. That stereotype further maintains that there has been a historically unique explosion of cults in a “conspiratorial plot against Christianity, America, or innocent youth” Context, context, context. An issue that some editors fail consistently to appreciate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• What are you trying to say here? The authors write that the subject comes closest of anyone to fulfilling the stereotypes of anticultists. We could say that Bromley and Shupe think most such stereotypes are inaccurate except when it comes to Prem Rawat, but I don't think we need that much "context". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Apropros of Indians and Rolls Royces, I came across this article that may be of interest even though it doesn't have anything to with the article directly. "Maharajas’ rendezvous with Rolls-Royce" ...n an average each maharaja in India had 3.5 Rolls-Royce automobiles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources and previous discussion

Ahem...

Can we please not edit war in my userspace?. Thanks. Steve Crossin (contact) 19:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Issue/Discussion topic D: Cagan

This thread is for discussion of the use of Andrea Cagan's book, Peace is Possible as a source for Misplaced Pages biographis of living people. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

We already agreed to discuss sources in the context in which they are used. So, there is no point on this thread. Please discuss at User_talk:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat/Proposal7#Mediator_Comments ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Cagan is used in various contexts, and its use is not dependent on the context. This is a long-term dispute and one that led to this mediation. The mediator added a list of topic to mediate at the top of this page. Let's discuss it here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please explain what are the problems you have with this source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Gladly, though it'll be a few hours before I can sit down to compose a full account. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Main thread (there have also been many short discussions on the same pages) Please add any important discussions that I've missed.:

• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 23#RFC Summary 23 February 2007
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 23#Why not accept Mighty River Press/Andrea Cagan's new book as being reliable? Then again, why? 26 February 2007
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 23#Clarifications 1 March 2007
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 23#Cagan's book as a source 2 March 2007
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 23#Further discussion 9 March 2007
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 24#Is Cagan's book considered a reliable source? 10 May 2007
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 29#Status of “Peace Is Possible” 18 February 2008
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 30#Westernization Section 19 February 2008
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 29#No Consensus 20 February 2008
• Talk:Divine Light Mission/Archive 3#Cagan 29 April 2008
• Talk:Divine Light Mission/Archive 4#Founding and early years 8 May 2008
• Talk:Divine Light Mission/Archive 4#Cagan on the DLM 12 May 2008

There are several problems with Cagan's Peace is Possible that are sufficient in my opinion to discount its use as a reliable, secondary source. (Note: I have read the book but I don't have a copy at hand.)

1. The most glaring problem is the total omission of the Divine Light Mission. The DLM was founded by the subject's father. The subject became the spiritual leader of the DLM as a child and retained that position until the missoin was disbanded starting in 1982. When he travelled to the U.K. and U.S. branches of the DLM were founded there. The DLM claimed to have millions of members in the 1970s. The DLM setup ashrams to house devoted followers of the subject and organized festivals in his honor. It bought him homes for which it paid the mortgages, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of planes and cars using their tax-exempt status. Virtually every single reference to the subject written before 1990 also mentions the DLM. Yet what does Cagan have to say about the DLM? Nothing. Not a word. There's not even a single entry for the organization in the index. This omission is so significant that it amounts to a major error, and brings the reliability of the entire book into question. It is the equivalent of a biography of John D. Rockefeller failing to mention Standard Oil, or a biography of Charles V leaving out the Holy Roman Empire.
2. The lack of sources, references, or citations is perplexing. If I recall correctly, the book contains verbatim transcripts of conversations that occured years or even decades ago. Yet the author explicitly says she never interviewed the subject. She also, apparently, failed to interview any ex-followers, even those in prominent positions like Dettmer. I've read several reviews of biographies in which the authors are castigated for giving verbatim dioalog without a source. It's poor writing and it raises further questions about reliability.
3. There are instances in which she directly contradicts other published sources without explanation. For example, she claims that the subject's doctor never diagnosed him with an ulcer, despite numerous printed reports quoting the doctor discussing his diagnosis. For another example, we have multiple sources that say the subject's passport was confiscated in 1973 and not returned until mid 1974 after the posting of a large bond. But Cagan says that it was returned immediately, and claims that published sources are mistaken about other details as well, all without giving any indication of how she would know better.
4. To someone familiar with the subject's history and controversies, it's apparent that the book is written entirely from the point of view of the subject. Like an autobiography, special effort seems to go into "settling old scores" and "setting the record straight". While it's hard to quantify bias, it's obvious enough to make the book unreliable except as a primary source for the opinions of Cagan.
5. The fact that it was published by a single-book publisher that was established by leading followers of the subject means that there was no 3rd-party editorial oversight, a necessity for a reliable source. WP:V tells us to judge books by the reputations of their publishers and the editing process. This book counts as close to zero in both respects.

   In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

In summary, the book is not just error-filled. It has an unexplained omission so large that it makes the rest of the book worthless as a reliable source. It contradicts published, reliable sources on factual matters. There are no references to make it appear reliable. It was published by a one-book company with no reputation for reliability. It is obviously biased in favor of the subject and against those who may be perceived as his opponents, including his family. For these reasons it is suitable only as a primary source for the author's opinions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• That seems like an excellent summary of the problems Will, oh, uhm but then again, I've done zero research, and made no useful proposals or comments so far, so I guess take my kudos for what you think they're worth.  :) -- Maelefique 05:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

1) There are numerous references to the organization Shri Hans started. And numerous references to the organizations that helped Rawat. It makes sense to be general since in Malaysia there was Prime Academy, in Singapore the Society for Insight, in Greece the Art of Life etc.

2) Numerous sources are quoted in the text, most of them eye witnesses.

3) Cagan's contradiction of media sources is to her credit. She spoke to dozens of people who were there, not a reporter relying on second and third hand reports.

4) No surprise that Rawat and the people around him have a different view from Christian clergyman or a newspaper reporter. That's why the book is so valuable, it's a story told by people who were there. Not by people reading about it in the paper.

5) As pointed out, PIP has been published by several established and independent publishing houses.

6) As per 5.

In summary, PIP is a valuable resource written by an independent and respected biographer and published by several established and independent publishing houses. We don't exclude sources because of their obvious negative bias, why would we want to exclude a source because some people think it has a positive bias. This is a storm in a teacup.Momento (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Not only eyewitnesses, but witnesses that went on the record. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I will take the time and respond to each one of these personal opinions of Will Beback about this book. For now, I will copy here the links we found today in which three other publishers (which may be better informed that Will BeBack) have published this book in other countries than the US:

• Editorial Dilema , and
• Alles Kultur , also featured here
• Editorial Magnolia , and here

These three publishers renders the supposed self-published status of this book moot. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Unless those publishers had editorial review over the books they would appear to count more as printers and distributors than as publishers in the sense meant by WP:V. If it's just a straight translation then I don't think that the book's reliability is improved along the way. Do the translations have forewords that say the facts have been checked by the new publishers? Did they change or correct any facts in the book? Do the translations mention the Divine Light Mission? If not then they haven't been corrected and the reliability of the book is the same as before it was translated. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You do not know, and you are speculating, crossing into WP:OR yet gain. I do not think that you can speculate about the inner workings and decision making of publishers. A publisher, as far as I know, assess a book before they take it on to put it in their catalog. And they may have made corrections, or not, depending if they had the need to do so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    • And you do not know that they exerted any editorial oversight of the work, which is an element of the evaluation that WP:V calls for us to do. It's still a zero. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
      • • And you don't know if they exerted editorial oversight, and cannot claim that they haven't, same as I cannot claim that they have. I can only speculate alongside you, but speculation will not win this argument for any of us. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Cagan has written several biographies, so she's in the clear. And PIP has been published by several independent and established publishes, so no cause for complaint there. This issue is finally and absolutely resolved.Momento (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• You do not know either, and you are also speculating, or do you have longstanding relationship with a few publishing firms (other than A Mighty River Press) to back up that claim? A publisher, as far as I know, does not assess a book if it is merely a translation, they translate it and reprint it, hardly a stamp of approval."And they may have made corrections or not", really? they may have done something, or might not have?? Isn't that the only 2 choices there are??! -- Maelefique 07:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You are speculating, I am speculating, Will is speculating. As said above, we will need to do a lot better to win this argument. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

How am I speculating? I just pointed out that unless you know a few publishing firms, your claims are just guesses. Do you know a few publishing firms? Particularly, how they operate in the field of republishing books, especially in foreign languages? I am not claiming to have such a relationship, or to be an expert, but I have had some experience with publishers and translations, and I cannot recall any instance where the publisher changed any meanings from the original text. Now that I think about it, how could they? It is not their book. -- Maelefique 07:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Will Beback personal opinions on this book, point by point:

1. DLM - The book focuses on Rawat's life on his message, and does not mention the DLM, or Elan Vital, maybe because these were organizations not founded by him. It mentions The Prem Rawat Foundation, because as Cagan writes: In November 2001, Maharaji established The Prem Rawat Foundation (TPRF), an idea he conceived during a conversation with Linda Pascotto, an active philanthropist and one of his long-time students. Maharaji was attracted to the idea of having his own foundation through which to further his message of peace and to provide humanitarian aid to people the world over.
2. The lack of sources, references, or citations is perplexing - Will BeBack can be as perplexed as he wants to be. We have used several books as sources in this article that have no references or citations. As for sources, the author states that: So, in preparation for this book, I decided to interview those who knew him well, and I met with everyone from his cook to his photographer, from his friends to his lifelong students. I taped conversations, I watched DVDs, and I read his talks that have been meticulously saved for posterity. Finally, after reviewing thousands of pages of interviews and media clippings, watching many of his taped addresses, and speaking to a multitude of people who knew him during different phases of his life, a picture began to emerge. - Authors chose who to interview and who not to interview. The fact that she did not interview some ex-followers does not mean that she does not have an opinion on them, as she writes about them in her book.
3. There are instances in which she directly contradicts other published sources without explanation - We have found through the many sources that we have amassed that there are often competing and contradictory statements made by poor journalism, hostile studies and what not. Cagan writes what she writes and we can attribute any such statements to her as we have done with other authors; About the passport, Cagan writes At one meeting, his passport was temporarily taken from him, which is different than what Will Beback claims. Cagan never says that it was returned immediately. Same about the ulcer. Will Beback interpretation of these issues is incorrect.
4. To someone familiar with the subject's history and controversies, it's apparent that the book is written entirely from the point of view of the subject. To this I will respond: To someone familiar with the 1970's, it is apparent that the negative press he received was related to the cultural context of these years. And yet, we abundantly use such sources. Granted, the book is sympathetic to Prem Rawat, but that does not make a source not reliable, as we can always attribute statements to authors, as we have always done in similar situations.
5. it was published by a single-book publisher - See previous comment about other publishers. The RfC on this was very useful: . Also note that the book has been published by three additional publishing houses: Editorial Dilema , and , Alles Kultur , and

In summary, the book is not error-filed as Will attempts to frame it, but a very detailed book on the life of Prem Rawat, from his birth and until today, with numerous accounts from individuals that had a direct contact with Rawat. As with many other biographies, it is written from a sympathetic point of view, which is neither a crime nor carries stigma of unreliability, and has been published and translated by four different publishing houses. A most suitable source for a Misplaced Pages article on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Interesting. But even the defense doesn't amount to more than asking to consider the content of the Cagan book at the same level as an op-ed. I think we can all live with that. What fired off this renewed discussion of Cagan (prop7) was whether on the wealth issue all material sourced to 70s newpapers could be replaced by Cagan material. There's certainly no improved reliability of the 21st century op-ed over contemporary material of the 70s (and later), where at least most often the sources are quoted (AP, UPI, Reuters,...), investigative journalism implied that all sides were asked to give their response, and errors were put straight the next day.
  In any case, Cagan is no match for scholarly sources, nor for mainstream newspapers (not that anyone was defending that stance, just making things clear), and thus has no place in what Wikipedians consider the category of sources of the highest reliability. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not argued for Cagan to be used as a replacement for any source. All I have argued that this book is a suitable source alongside all other sources. As for the op-ed argument above, I am not sure that this type of argument is grounded: I have yet to see that biographies are considered op-eds. Granted, biographies of living people are in many cases written as opinionated pieces, but that is not new or special. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And before you assume that your opinion of this book is accepted, I would say that you are mistaken. I will continue to make proposals in which her book is used, as I am doing with other material I am researching. This discussion is not about specific edits, but a generic discussion about the book. Again: this book is a suitable source for material about the life of Prem Rawat, per arguments presented. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Also to be noted that the edition I have has a page count of 349 pages, and I would be interested on what other "errors" Will Beback has found beside the two he claims to be such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Note that one of the RfC respondents bnack in 2007 said that if any evidence of inaccuracy in this book is presented, we can look on books published by this press with some suspicion. There is evidence of inaccuracy, even aside from the glaring omission. I don't have the book in front of me, but other editors may know of additional errors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The glaring omission is only your personal opinion, which differs from mine. My opinion is that it is not an omission but maybe, a deliberate act: Rawat did not found the DLM or Elan Vital, and as per scholarly sources never keen on organizations. So, the author may have wanted to simply describe PR's life from that perspective. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• If the author wants to write a distorted biography that fails to mention the organization that bought his homes, cars, and planes, that organized his followers, his ashrams, and his festivals, that produced films, printed magazines, and newspapers to honor him, that was the "family business" his father created, then that author is welcome to write that story. But it'd be inappropriate for serious encyclopedia writers to take such an eccentric book and use it as a reliable secondary source for facts about living persons. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You keep making your opinions sound like facts. This is not a distorted biography. It is a biography that is not written from a hostile press viewpoint, which I could argue is as distorted as it can get. Again, your opinions are just that, and have no merit unless you can present evidence that there are errors in Cagans facts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    • It is a fact that the book omits any mention of the DLM. It is a fact that the DLM was the organization of Rawat's followers, that it paid his bills for decades, and that it is intimately tied to his fame and prominence. The existence of the DLM was not imagined by a hostile press. The DLM is mentioned by the scholars and other writers just as often as by the journalists. Even Geaves mentions it. Is he the "hostile press"? The omission of the DLM is itself an enormous error that leaves the book so skewed and incomplete as to be utterly unreliable for the unsourced facts it does include. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I've realized what the problem is. The U.S. in the 70s was still essentially a racist, xenophobic country. It was only in 1970 that support for formal legal segregation finally dissolved and the Ohio national guard still felt it appropriate to murder four anti-war protestors at Kent State University. So the criticism of an Indian foreigner like Rawat a few years later was common and accepted by many. The sort of gratuitous insults repeated regularly in the press about Rawat's looks, diet, speaking style, religious concepts and traditions would never happen in a reputable newspaper now. Even Time magazine made fun of his vegetarian diet. Especially galling to the narrow minded establishment was fact that tens of thousands of America's best and brightest preferred Rawat to them and enabled him to live like a millionaire. Even in 1980 this xenophobia was alive and well in some areas - A 1980 article in The Washington Post reported that a Maryland House of Delegates committee was urged to investigate religious cults in the state and told that "Guru Maharaj Ji's Divine Light Mission (amongst other groups) was a cult that employ manipulative techniques and turned children against their parents." Committee members Del. Robin Ficker (R-Montgomery) likened such a probe to the Spanish Inquisition and Del. Luiz Simmons, another Montgomery Republican, compared it to the McCarthy hearings in the early 1950s. Obviously we've all moved on since then.Momento (talk) 10:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have taken receipt of the US version of "Peace is Possible" now, and one of the foreign-language versions is conveniently searchable in amazon. It's not quite correct to say that the book does not mention the "organization", it does mention it many times and always refers to it just as such ("organization"). It refers (at least once) to "premies". It mentions Millennium '73, as well as Mishler (several times). It does not claim that Rawat did not have an ulcer, merely that journalists made a big deal about it before there even had been an official announcement. (In fact I am puzzled that a doctor should have spoken to the press without the patient's consent, I thought that would be a breach of medical confidentiality, but whatever.) Cagan does not claim that Rawat's passport was returned immediately, she says it was "temporarily taken from him" and mentions that Rawat was eager to leave India and couldn't. Generally, the book looks like a typical "authorised" celebrity biography to me, from what I've seen so far. Jayen466 11:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree on all counts. I do not believe Rawat's doctor discussed Rawat's condition with the press. No normal doctor would do it, and Rawat's doctor certainly would not.Momento (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, checking again, there is some apparent discrepancy with regard to the ulcer. Cagan says, 'Although there was never an official diagnosis of his illness, the press had a field day, proclaiming, "The guru has an ulcer."' Press reports of the time, however, quote Dr Horton, his personal physician (and a premie), stating that he had a mild ulcer. (There is also a very slight discrepancy between the German and English versions of the book which led to my misquoting Cagan above; the German says "no official announcement" ("keine offizielle Verlautbarung"), while the English says "no official diagnosis".) Jayen466 12:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)]

• I did a bit of searching and came upon the website of Carrie Andrews who is a professional proofreader, fact-checker, and copyeditor. She lists as her clients under Non-Fiction: Copyedit: Andrea Cagan/The Prem Rawat Foundation, Peace Is Possible. 10/06. See Carrie Andrews, under "non-fiction." If this professional proofreader and copyeditor claims to have provided services for her clients: Andrea Cagan/The Prem Rawat Foundation, it logically follows that PIP is a self-published, vanity press book for TPRF, which contracted Andrea Cagan to write the book about Prem Rawat. While Andrews claims to also do fact-checking, she doesn't state she did any fact-checking on Cagan's book about Prem Rawat. PIP, therefore, is a vanity piece paid for and promoted by The Prem Rawat Foundation. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Hadn't folks already discovered that the two men who founded MightyRiver Press were on the board of the PRF? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh? "folks"? "discovered"? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And who might these "folks" be? Well, at least Will isn't pretending to be neutral any more. Rumiton (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC) I am sorry, I should have referred to Will's eagerness to adopt any source that is critical of Prem Rawat in a more neutral way. Won't happen again. Rumiton (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Ms Andrews copyedited Cagan's book. If you care to look what Ms Andrews says her copyediting services comprise, you will see that it includes fact checking. So the argument is now that because the author demonstrably used an independent fact checker, the book is not fact-checked. We all know that the publishers of the book have close links to Rawat. The same is true, however, for any other authorised biography, and I am not aware that authorised biographies are generally disallowed as sources, however fawning some of them may be. Jayen466 18:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The point is that Ms. Andrews's client is "Andrea Cagan/The Prem Rawat Foundation." Not Andrea Cagan and the Mighty River Press, the publisher, which is standard practice in the publishing field when a publisher doesn't have the human resources to conduct its own copy editing. If, as you contend, Ms Andrews did fact checking, then she did a horrible job because in her book there are so many big errors, and huge errors of omissions (which are in fact lies) in the book -- it's difficult to begin to list them them all. But, rest assured, I've contacted Ms. Andrews to ascertain whether she indeed did do fact-checking (which if she say she did, will make me want to give her a big fat grade F on her services) along with copy editing because the two are quite different things. Btw, PIP is not a bona fide "authorized biography." Show me where the book says that it's an authorized biography. It's a bought and paid for vanity piece by TPRF that bought and paid a devotee, Levine, who formed the publishing company, Mighty River Press for the sole purpose of publishing a book paid for by TPRF, or Prem Rawat. Andrea Cagan is a sort-of ghost writer who gets credit for her work on other biographies, such as Grace Slick's, but they are not academic biographies with bona fide sources, footnotes and end notes on sources. Frankly, Jayen, your naivete on the subject of NRMs is surprising, and if you are so naive, that tells me you are unable to write NPOV, so I suggest you find another uncontroversial topic on Wiki about which to write, or seriously consider reading about the subject of cognitive dissonance. You're not helping on this project, Jayen, you're hindering in a big way because you obviously don't know how to research and report on subjects using rational and critical thinking, nor are you able to make critical assessments about the same. But, I'm sure you are willing to learn so go and learn. Sylviecyn (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

OMG, people see ghosts where they want to see them. If you read carefully the author's note, Cagan says "and I read his talks that have been meticulously saved for posterity", so it could have been that Cagan and the fact checker worked with the Foundation to obtain archival material for the book. I think that people here should stop with the speculation and rather that pursue their pet theories, provide evidence of the factual errors that they are claiming the book has. I have not found any such errors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sylviecyn, for one, the book is described as an authorised biography on several websites critical of Rawat. I think it's safe to say that it shares some characteristics of all authorised biographies, notably those of glossing over controversy and presenting its subject in the way they would like to be seen. However, while it may be biased, it is not more so than some of the other sources (in the opposite direction) that we use and cite. Having been published in four or five languages, I see no reason to categorically say it must not be used as a source here. In fact, for some details, such as family circumstances etc., it is probably indispensable. My stance is, it can be used, with attribution where contentious. Jayen466 21:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Jayen, elsewhere you seem to be saying that it's more reliable than mainstream newspapers. That's the opposite of what WP:V says. If we're going to use it at all, we need to establish how reliable it is. Based on the criteria in WP:V, it appears to be the least reliable source possible. That doens't mean it can't be used ever, but it means that there is no reason to think it is more reliable than sources that do meet the WP:V criteria. I think that "where contentious" it shouldn't be used at all, any more than we'd use a follower's blog. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing that it was more reliable than mainstream newspapers. I proposed including both versions, or dropping any reference to the disputed fact altogether, given that it was minor. And there are cases where I would consider Cagan the more reliable source. Don't you remember, e.g., the Malibu Guru Maintains Following Despite Rising Mistrust of Cults article in the LA Times (12 Jan. 1979) states that the Malibu estate was bought in 1974 for "Maharaj Ji, his wife and their two small children." Cagan is clearly the more accurate and reliable source here, stating the exact birthdays of all four children, with the first two being born in March 1975 and September 1976 – the Rawats didn't have children in 1974. (And just for good measure, their third child was born in June 1978, so they had three, not two, children by the time the article in the LA Times appeared.) The judgment depends on the context. Jayen466 22:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, the other day we were speculating on the Proposal 7 talk page when Rawat might first have taken flying lessons, what the minimum age for taking flying lessons might be, etc. Cagan clearly dates his first flying lessons to 1972 (in England, following a trip to South Africa where he flew with an instructor). I see no reason to doubt her veracity on such matters, or that Rawat once had a boating accident by being stupid and nearly ended up drowning etc. Jayen466 22:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I could not disagree more (with Will). Please do not mis-use personal opinions or personal judgments to assert reliability of a source. I am still awaiting to see what "errors" are in Cagan's book, because have not found any. I have read the book and it includes a large number of personal accounts of people that had contact with Prem Rawat, which went on the record. An excellent piece of research, IMO. As Jaen said, granted it is a sympathetic account of PRs life, but it is not less researched than some of the pieces that we are using as sources, some of which re conradictory with other such sources, of that have been characterized as biased (as Kemmeny vs Foss & Larkin). For facts that are not disputed in other sources, Cagan can be used without attribution, and for facts that are contradicted in other sources or for opinions, we always have attribution. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

See for example Meher Baba, which I have been working on with other GA reviewers. Most of the material for that article is sourced to sympathetic sources, and there is no problem whatsoever if properly attributed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Whose personal accounts does Cagan's book include? Do we know their names or are they anonymous? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I though you said that you have read the book. Have you? If you have, you would remember that there are many, many people interviewed and their names clearly stated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the book and there are many, many people's full names that comment throughout the article about the happenings they were involved in through PR's life. Some examples Carol Hurst, Sandy Collier, David Lovejoy (an Oxford graduate and international-class chess player according to Cagan), Sue Ratcliffe ... and these in just two pages 145-146. I will have to go trough the index and count them all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't have the book in front of me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

So, may I ask what are you asking for? A list of names? Do not see what would be the purpose of that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

My question was whether we knew the names of the people who gave personal accounts and you answered yes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Cagan couldn't have done any real fact-checking on chapter subjects that concern former followers, other than to gain the opinions and personal accounts about them from current adherents (who are clearly biased). She never contacted any of those ex-premies or former followers to give them an opportunity to confirm or deny her accounts of them, so that's a specific reason to limit PIP to only matters about uncontroversial things, such as dates, places of birth, etc. Also, there certainly are errors of omission, which are bona fide errors, by the way, i.e., Cagan didn't interview Mahatma Saphlanand (the first western Mahatma) yet writes about him, Mike Finch was entirely written out of the history of Rawat's life and he played a key role in arranging Maharaji's travel to the UK, as well as others, who are no longer followers of Maharaji, but happen to be vocally critical. Did she contact John MacGregor? These a legitimate questions that make the book so hagiographic rather than biographical. And reason to question the "facts" in the book. In her other "biograhies," Cagan co-wrote them with the subject, such as with Grace Slick, but in PIP, she didn't even interview Prem Rawat. Moreover, any fact-checking that may have been done by the copyeditor, according to Jossi above, was conducted through TPRF by obtaining and checking archival material from TPRF, yet the copyeditor lists TPRF as her client, not Visions International which is the d/b/a of Elan Vital that maintains all of Prem Rawat's biographical archival material. How can someone fact-check in the real spirit of literary editorial fact-checking, when they limit their own sources of such fact-checking to only Pro-Rawat individuals and his organizations, yet also include in her book account about others (former followers) when they are not contacted to fact-check her accounts of them? That's a glaring error right there. It was agreed in previous discussions that PIP would be used only for non-controversial issues. Why has that now changed? I'm not imagining ghosts, and if I'm going to reprimanded for characterizing other editors, I'd appreciate if editors refrain from doing the same.  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

More speculation? When will this end? How do you know who maintains biographical archival material? It seems that you have not read the book. Cagan interviewed dozens of former mahatmas and bai ji's. Sure, she did not interviewed some apostates, but I would not blame her for it. After all this is a book about Prem Rawat and his message. Granted, she does report on McGregor and other people, so it seems that she reported what she thinks is notable on the subject. Sure, she makes some quite devastating arguments about the activities of certain detractors, without mincing words, but hey, that is her prerrogative, as it is the prerrogative of other sources to write things intended to assessinate PRs's character. This book can and should be used to report facts and figures not available in other sources, and on subjects about which there are other sources that say differently, we can always use attribution, as we have done with many other sources that would have been less informed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also argue that the framing for "pro-Rawat", "anti-Rawat" is one that critical ex members tend to over emphasize (which can be understood given the intense focus these people have on the subject), but that is a distortion that should be ignored when addressing ths article. This article is not about pro or anti viewpoints on the life of PR, but a biographical article that needs to be written in an encyclopedic tone. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not speculation, Jossi, it's argument, two different things. Cagan wrote a hagiographical account of Prem Rawat and neglected to fact-check matters concerning those people she chose to be critical of, i.e., apostates (your term), or former followers, ex-premies. That, without question, brings into question the reliability of her book as a whole source in this article by viture of her omission of fact-checking in those areas. In my argument here I'm not advocating more anti- over pro- material in the article. Those are also your words. I'm merely asking that all editors put on their objective thinking caps and acknowledge that Cagan didn't do an exhaustive fact-checking of her book on all areas of her writing, and didn't interview all the subjects in her material. She is guilty of error by omission. It's plain and simple and undeniable. She didn't interview John Brauns, for example, or Mike Finch, and that may have been her choice, but that's also her problem if she wants her book to be viewed as a credible biography. Therefore, her book is not a reliable source for anything but for non-contentious material. Why? Because Cagan chose to take the "sloppy writing" route rather than confirming information about everyone about whom she wrote, including your apostates. Heck, she could have interviewed all the apostates and still written about them in her book as it stands, including that your apostates said they disagreed with her account of them. That is simply what all good biographers and journalists do -- they contact the living subjects of their books or articles, in order to give them the option to confirm or deny or not comment. But, unfortunately, Cagan didn't do that, and because she didn't do that, her whole account of Rawat's life is now not reliable. Cagan cannot have her cake and eat it too. If one or two of her chapters are in question, then the entire book must be called into scrutiny. That's the context of my argument, which is not opinion, but argument. Please remember that instead of characterizing my arguments based on your personal opinions of me. Thank you. Sylviecyn (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You're requiring Cagan to come up to a standard that many of our other sources do not fulfil either. I am as sure as you are about Cagan that all the people who wrote negative and slanted articles about Rawat, whether based on apostate testimony or not, didn't bother checking with premies either (or Rawat himself, for that matter). They certainly didn't bother putting his or their side. What you are proposing seems like a double standard to me, unless you are in favour of excluding all those one-sided press articles as well. Jayen466 19:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No I'm not, Jayen. Jossi claims the book is exhaustively researched and he asked for errors to be pointed out, which is what I did. Rawat's organization claim it to be the most thorough, etc. biography of Rawat ever written. Omissions of fact (and people) are still errors. Just like lying by omission is still a lie. All I'm saying is that any author who writes non-fiction, especially biographical works, must be held to high standards, just like mainstream periodicals and newspapers hold their writers to high standards, especially concerning their sources and fact-checking because their newpapers could be open to liable suits. That Cagan writes about former followers but chose (Jossi's word) not to contact them so she could determine if what she writes about them is factual or not, is sloppy, unprofessional unreliable writing and unsuitable for any sourcing, but for dates of birth, places of birth, etc. which I hope she did get correct. I know of one date she did have an error on and it's a minor point, but still. It's the date of a program in New Jersey in 1976. And if you read many of the media accounts, the majority of such reports have asked for resonses from official Rawat/DLM spokepersons, and/or followers. Another argument against the Cagan book is that her other works are categorized as autobiographies because she co-authored them with the subject. That Cagan never interviewed Rawat is quite strange, considering he's a living subject and given they both live in the L.A. area. Additionally, because Cagan had open access to the subject's organizations, archives, and followers, she must be held up to a much higher standard of accuracy and fact-checking, than say, scholarly sources and media reports that had very limited, if any, access to the subject, etc. And I'm not just speaking to POVs here, pro or con. I'm speaking to a book sloppily, haphazardly written with little regard for facts. Sylviecyn (talk) 11:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing that the book is perfect. Not referring to the DLM name is an editorial decision; but are you seriously suggesting that because of this, readers would not know who the book is about? Rawat is called Maharaji for much of the book, the Millennium event is covered, the entire controversy around his marriage and family rift is covered, and as far as I can see, factually. What the book does have is a distinctly pro-Rawat POV. For example, describing the court case against Bal Bhagwan Ji, Cagan writes:

Maharaji filed a counterclaim against Bal Bhagwan Ji. But after listening to false accusations for nearly an hour in a private talk with the judge, Maharaji withdrew his counterclaim and asked for the proceedings to be stopped immediately, out of respect for his late father. The judge responded positively. After being shamed by the judge for disrespecting his father's name, Bal Bhagwan Ji withdrew his claim as well, and Maharaji left India, not to return for many years to come.

— Cagan, pp. 208–209

Now compare this to the LA Times report:

Rival gurus Majaraj Ji and his oldest brother called off their legal confrontation Friday but kept up their feud over who is "perfect master" of their sect.

Maharaj Ji, 17, and Bal Bhagwan Ji, 24, promised an Indian judge they would try to settle their competing claims to leadership of the Divine Light Mission out of court. They dropped their defamation suits against each other after being scolded by Judge Prithan Singh Safeer during an hourlong hearing.

"Courts should not be utilized for washing this dirty linen," Safeer declared. "You say you are men of religion. Well, there is going to be bloodshed in your family unless you settle your disputes. If you want bloodshed, continue with this litigation. But why not come to terms?"

Maharaj Ji then stepped forward and unconditionally withdrew his defamation suit against his brother. After some coaxing from the judge, Bhagwan Ji withdrew his suit.

However, within hours after the hearing ended, it was clear that the brothers were still reluctant to work out a compromise over who should lead the international religious movement founded by their late father in 1961.

"I intend to serve as the spiritual head of my devotees as instructed by my late father", Maharaj Ji said. "Although I was not the first in starting litigation, I am happy that I was the first to withdraw out of it," he added.

— "Gurus Call Off Courtroom Battle", Los Angeles Times, 24 May 1975

The facts are the same, the POV is not. But that is not a problem. Each source brings its own POV, and we should generally be on guard against that.

If opponents of Rawat fear that Cagan's book may be used to slander them, I am hopeful we can all agree that we will not cite those parts of Cagan's book. Beyond that, I feel it adds valuable insider detail, and as long as it is used with attribution, it can be managed responsibly. Jayen466 12:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

My concern has nothing to do with whether or not anyone will be libelled (btw, libel is written defamation, slander is spoken defamation). The point is that the book is promoted by TPRF, ContactInfo, and Mighty River Press as "...the first full and complete story of Prem Rawat. It documents his extraordinary life, from growing up with a father who was a revered master, to the day he first addressed audiences at age three, to being discovered by hippies at his home by the Himalayan foothills when he was a child, to his dramatic arrival in the West at thirteen, to today." Either it's full and complete or its not. Moreover, if this authorized biography is used as a source for controversial issues, then I propose that the earlier authorized biography of Prem Rawat, Who is Guru Maharaj Ji. is also suitable to be used as a source for this article(s). That book, published in 1973 by Bantam Books, states it is "The authentic authorized story of the 15-year-old Guru whose message of peace has changed millions of lives!" Sylviecyn (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I was not speaking in a legal context, but if you want to discuss dictionary definitions, see . The book certainly covers his entire life story, including the DLM period, so I have no idea what you're getting at. My feeling is you simply don't like the POV of the book. At any rate, I and others still await a cataloguing of all these numerous factual inaccuracies. So far you have claimed, without a source, that a date is wrong somewhere. Wow! Jayen466 14:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The "one-sided" press reports are published in mainstream newspapers that have editorial review processes. The "one-sided" material in Cagan's book was published by a one-book publisher established by his followers that has no perceptible editorial review process. They are not in the same league. And the journalists do routinely quote Rawat's spokesmen and followers,m so they aren't one-sided at all. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll allow that not all, but very many quality media accounts have taken the trouble to seek and include a statement from a spokesperson for Rawat. I would reiterate though that popular press accounts have been criticised as biased by scholars and religious freedom observers. Jayen466 21:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Those criticisms were not, so far as I'm aware, about any of the sources we're using. They were general criticisms. There are general criticisms of vanity biographies too. I don't think that general criticisms that aren't specific to these sources or this topic are especially useful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not. So, after all this, and given that she does name sources, how would you propose Cagan be used? Not at all? With attribution only? Jayen466 22:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going away from the computer for the next 24 hours or so, and will respond when I'm back. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

@Sylviecyn: I did not characterize arguments based on you. But let me ask a question: why should Cagan interview John Brauns? What notability are yous asserting to consider his testimony to be useful? So, she did not interview Finch or other people, so what? An author interviews whomever the author want to interview. Are we now starting to make assessments of sources based on whom the source's author interviewed or not? If we do that we shall throw away 99% of the sources we have used. We have sources that are absolutely wrong, and yet we cite them. We have sources that are contradicted on other sources, yet we cite them. We have sources that are written by people with an agenda (Lans, Kraneborg, for example), and we still cite them. We have sources written by irresponsible journalists, and we still cite them, etc. So, if we apply the same standards to all sources, biased for, bisaed againsr, or neutral, there is absolutely no reason not to use Cagan as a source, attributing anything that is contested when needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

@Will Beback: You are implying that journalistic sources are impeachable, but that is farther from the truth. As someone has already argued, the context on the 1970's is one that cannot be dismissed. Journalistic sources that describe PR as a "overweight midget" are as tainted as one can argue, and still, editors here have fervently argued for their inclusion. In summary, Cagan's book is as good as any other source we have proposed for these articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No one has argued, fervently or otherwise, for the inclusion of comments like "overweight midget". However, it is a fact that the subject was about 5'5" in height and was soberly reported to weigh 160 pounds, which is overweight according to today's standards. Those facts aren't in dispute. Even his physician discussed his weight publicly. There's no comparing of mainstream newspaper reporting with a vanity book paid for by followers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask you again. Have you read the book? How can you argue that this book is a "vanity" piece when it describes numerous controversies, including a tomato throwing incident at an event in France, and many others. This book is as good as a source as many other sources that you have proposed. As for "paid by followers", it seems that these "followers" had a good business sense, as the book reached number 9 in Amazon in the first days after being published, and seem to have sold the rights to three other publishers in Europe. That in itself does not make this book unsuitable as a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

When a book on a now-obscure spiritual teacher sells tens of thousands of copies in a week it's pretty obvious that the buyers are his followers. You have only to read the Amazon reviews to get a sense of the buying population. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought we had previously established, with the agreement of the Rawat followers here, Jossi, Derek, and Rumiton, that Cagan's book is to be treated as self-published for the purposes of the Misplaced Pages articles, and therefore should only be used for non-contentious information. Is anyone now arguing that it is published by a reliable publisher? If so, then surely ex-premie.org is back in? If that previous agreement is now thrown out, then any agreement that Steve mediates is equally transient. Steve, how do you propose that any such agreements stand the test of time? Are you willing to police the articles forever? Rawat's followers will serve him until their death or the day they become ex-premies. --John Brauns (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• I will ignore your highly offensive last remarks. Consensus can change. Source can refer either to the author, the publisher, or the work itself. I previously agreed that PiP be restricted to non-controversial information, not because I considered the source (in this case the author) to be inferior, but because I considered the book to be biased. Since then so much even more extremely biased material and sources have been included (mainly by one editor) that objecting on these grounds has become absurd. Count me out of the previous consensus. I now posit that Cagan is a WP:RS in every respect. Rumiton (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Obviously there will be a time where I do mark this case as {{resolved}}. Until that time comes, I'll continue to mediate this case, and I won't rule out mediating it in future if needed. For now, please take note that in a week or so, I may be busier than normal, for a week or so. As for Cagan, I'm thinking it will be more likely that at a point, I'll just have to consider proposing a compromise for it's use. But I'll leave that when all other options have been exhausted. Steve Crossin (contact) 08:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What an obnoxious statement to make John. And quite disgusting, really. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah... I see, some people here are maybe afraid that Cagan's book will be used as a source about the detractors. Is that the issue? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Jossi, the issue is that we, including you, had previously agreed that PIP is self-published, and therefore should only be used for non-contentious issues. You do remember agreeing to this don't you? I do hope so because I don't really want to quote the diffs. And which statement is disgusting? Are you saying you won't serve him all your life? I thought you would be proud to agree with me on this issue. --John Brauns (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that we have exhausted this debate. As with other sources, we shall conduct specific discussions about specific facts and opinions in Cagan's book in the context of specific edits. I move to close this discussion and get on with the proposals ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Jossi's proposal. We should re-establish that Cagan's book is self-published so that such long debates about content are unnecessary. --John Brauns (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Jossi, this isn't a meeting being conducted by using Robert's Rules of Order where you can move to close the meeting. John's right, it was previously agreed to limit the use of PIP. I agree that we should so limit PIP's use as previously agreed. Sylviecyn (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Consensus can change. Since last discussion the book has been published by three additional independent and reputable publishers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That's quite a misleading statement. No one else has published the book in english as far as I know. Republications in foreign languages do not lend more credence to this book's authority. And just curious, what research did you do to confirm the "independent and reputable" qualities of those foreign language publishers? -- Maelefique 04:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Version, Editorial Dilema, in the book: "The version in English of this book can be requested to the publishing house Might River Press through the Web", sounds like a straighforward translation to me. No additional authors listed.

German Version/Alles Kultur, "The American best-seller authoress Andrea Cagan submits the first comprehensive Biografie of Prem Rawat", with Cagan again listed as the only author.

Portuguese version/ Editorial Magnolia,Same text as the German, translated almost verbatim again, Cagan listed as only author again.

No other fact checkers or additional authors listed. If it was different text, it wouldn't be the same book, and it would have additional authors listed. I see no reason to think these foriegn versions lend any more legitimacy (or any less) to Cagan's book. -- Maelefique 05:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but they do lend more. The insult implied by "self-published" and even more by "vanity published" is that the manuscript would be unlikely on its merits to recover publication costs. The fact that foreign publishing houses saw the English success of the book and paid for translations gives it the lie. This is a quality source. Rumiton (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Rumiton, the politics are quite obvious: the only reason there such a long discussion about this book, is because it paints an horrendous picture of certain people, the motives and their actions. The discussion above is designed to impeach this source so that it cannot be used for that material. Politics and nothing else. Of course, that is my opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that is a major assumption of bad faith by a number of editors. I'm not mentioned in the book, I wasn't part of producing the book, and I don't know anyone who has been. For you to assert that I'm opposed to using this book with its bizarre omissions as a reliable source has nothing to do with anything it says about your unnamed "certain people". In the future please keep your conspiracy theories on private TPRF forums, and remember to AGF when commenting on Misplaced Pages. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Jayen asked above: So, after all this, and given that she does name sources, how would you propose Cagan be used? Not at all? With attribution only?
• I think that what we have here is the result of a few of Prem Rawat's followers under the auspices of TPRF putting together the money to hire a celebrity ghostwriter. She listened to tapes of talks by Rawat and others, and interviewed a few carefully-chosen current followers. The resulting book was published by the followers. What we have is essentially a self-published autobiography that contains obvious bias and has huge holes in it. She calls his palatial estate a "little house", records every honor he's ever received or paid for, yet neglects any mention of the subject's two main organizations. The omissions of the DLM and EV are so strange that this book nearly qualifies as a fringe source. (How many other publications that discuss the subject, whether by scholars, popular writers, or journalists, and no matter how short the piece, neglect to mention either organization?)
• So how do we use it? The same way we'd use any similar source - as little as possible. It certainly can't be used at all for the articles on the DLM or EV since the book negates their existence. When it's used for the biography of Rawat, and when it quotes someone, we should provide double attribution, "According to X, as quoted in Cagan..." If it's not quoting a source I don't think we should use it at all. If there are other sources covering the same incidents then it isn't necessary, and if it's the only source for an incident then it isn't sufficient. Only when one of the interviewees has a significant viewpoint that we need to include about an already established event should we quote from the book. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Which house are you referring to Will? The one in the google photo or the little house that was pulled down in the early 90s. The organizations are adequately covered, PIP can be used in the DLM and EV articles if it is relevant. We don't make the newspaper articles say "Claimed by Morgan from an anonymous source" so why would we make Cagan?Momento (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I tell you what - we can use Cagan as a source for the DLM any time she mentions the DLM by name. As for the difference between Cagan and mainstream newspaper, PIP was printed by a one-book publisher while the newspapers are preinted by respected publishers. Per WP:V, that means the newspapers are reliable and Cagan is not. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If we accept the argument of Cagan's book being a self-published source (which I disagree is the case), we can still use Cagan for facts and figures not covered elsewhere without the need for attribution, and we can also quote Cagan for facts and figures that are mentioned elsewhere with full attribution if Cagan presents a competing view. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really, because the book has demonstrated errors so significant as to render the book unreliable. Please also see WP:V which says that the reliablity of books is judged by the reputations of their publishers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Also note, that if the book was indeed published by "followers", it does not make it self-published. Same as many books written by followers of Meher Baba, i.e. his main biographer Purdon, was a follower and still his book is used extensively as a source in that article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Purdon's book was originally published by a respected publisher, Allen & Unwin, so the two cases aren't comparable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Cagan reviews

• I have found as many ways to work as there are clients. While each person thinks, creates and expresses differently, my initial task is similar to that of a detective - - to develop the most effective, comforting and productive method of interviewing I can find. I experiment with taping, taking notes, writing together with the client and apart, until we find the freedom and trust to tell an authentic story in the client's voice - - one of my most challenging and playful skills that make all the difference in the finished product. My main goal with my celebrity work is to pick up the voice and tell the story in a way that will leave the client feeling intelligently and authentically represented while inspiring the reader to keep turning those pages!
  • Cagan on Cagan: How I do it"

• Before discussing the ways that rock autobiographies have been received by critics and fans, I need to note a particular feature of most rock autobiographies. They are written collaboratively. Of course, many pop culture autobiographies are written collaboratively, as are a few ‘high culture’ life-stories. But how can an autobiography, by definition a story in which actor and author are understood to be one and the same, be written by – or, rather, ‘with’ – another? Most collaborative rock autobiographies list the musician’s name first and then add ‘with’, as in Be My Baby by Ronnie Spector with Vince Waldron (1990), and Faithfull (1994) by Marianne Faithfull with David Dalton. But what does it mean to write with another? How does collaboration work in these cases? What are the processes, advantages and problems? Grace Slick’s book gives us a bit of insight into her case in an ‘author’s note’, which I quote in part:

. . . method involved Andrea’s giving me a foundation for each chapter by providing a list of topics she’d heard me discuss, at which point I’d write down my recollection or interpretation of that aspect of my life . . . Yup, these are my words, with the help of the runway, the mechanic, and the control tower. (Slick 1998, p. xi)

• Slick goes on a bit more, suggesting that Cagan served only as an unusually active editor. Employing Slick’s metaphors, we are meant to understand that Slick did the actual ‘flying’ or writing.
  • "That’s Me in the Spotlight: rock autobiographies" by Thomas Swiss Popular Music (2005) Volume 24/2. Copyright © 2005 Cambridge University Press, pp. 287–294doi:10.1017/S0261143005000504 Printed in the United Kingdom

• I used to feel bad about being born too late in the 1960's to absorb fully the signal... But by the end of Grace Slick's messy, muddled, indulgent and occasionally amusing autobiography, I'm kind of relieved I did miss most of it. ...Her reflections often read as if her collaborator, Andrea Cagan, scribbled in the margins of the manuscript, "PIs. insrt yr thots on 60's here."
  • "White rabbit" Alex Kuczynski New York Times Book Review; Sep 20, 1998; pg. 12

• Slight but endearing, Somebody To Love? briefly catalogs Slicks highs (Woodstock,fucking Jim Morrison, going to the White House with Abbie Hoffman and a dose of acid for Nixon) and laws (Alog stalkers, DUIs). There appear to have been several pages let to fill, and they ve been added out with screeds on politics, taxes, and the plight of the panda bear. The autobiography makes good use of Slicks years as an alcoholic, rambling and reeling like a good-natured lush who's latched on to you in a bar. Since her '60s heyday is recalled so undramatically, it's Slicks life these days that stands out as the books most memorable aspect. Out of the public eye since 1989's brief Airplane reunion, she leads a mostly reclusive life in Malibu. Just another slob at the supermarket--and rails at length against aging.
  • "Somebody To Love? A Rock-and-Roll Memoir" John Sanchez. The Village Voice. New York: Sep 1, 1998. Vol. 43, Iss. 35; pg. 57, 1 pgs

• The jury ruled in favor of Goldman and Barzano, but reduced their monetary award by 42 percent, assigning them that share of contributory blame. Goldman's final award was around $1 million. By the time her lawyer proposed she write a book, Goldman had blotted out many traumatic details. "For me, it was more about going on with life," she said, "and that's what I've been doing for the past 14 years. Once I started to work with Andrea (Cagan) and the tape recorder, that's when it started to come back."
  • "She lost her legs, not her heart;" CECELIA GOODNOW. Houston Chronicle. Houston, Tex.: Jan 30, 2002. pg. 1

• Slick does a nice job of explaining the dynamic of her band, The Jefferson Airplane, and its place within rock history. She talks about how she loves the creative process of making a song in the studio, but she never takes us in there with her while the magic is being made. Perhaps she was too messed up to remember. She certainly forgot much of her recording chronology. There is precious little here about how her brother-in-law, Darby Slick, wrote "Somebody to Love" or about how she concocted the drug anthem "White Rabbit." Those songs pre-date her Jefferson Airplane years, even though it was only with them that they became hits. Slick skims over the years she spent with her first husband and the year or so she spent in her first band, seemingly anxious to get to the funny business with that warring family, the Airplane. ...But the battle-by-battle account of her ego-struggles with Airplane's Marty Balin, the only guy in the band who didn't sleep with her, is missing. And after she had - and squandered - a platform from which others, notably the Beatles, tried to change the world, it is hard to take her autumnal animal-rights activism seriously.
  • "ROCK ICON REFUSED TO ROLL WITH THE PUNCHES;" Roger Moore JOURNAL BOOK REVIEWER *Moore, a former Journal reporter, now writes from Florida.. Winston - Salem Journal. Winston-Salem, N.C.: Apr 18, 1999. pg. 20

• Before the publication of "A Bend in the Road," people in this quandary were forced to muddle through on their own. But no more. We now have a guidebook by Joan Lunden, a true American success story, a woman who pulled herself up from the affluent suburbs of northern California to make something of herself. (Does not making prom queen count as hardship?)...Even if one could stomach this cliche-fest ("Stand Like a Mountain, Flow Like Water"), the photos ultimately do the thing in. Certainly Lunden is an attractive woman, with a younger boyfriend and a positive self-image. But does the world really need pictures of Joan in bed, Joan in cowboy dress, Joan bungee jumping, Joan dressed as a Las Vegas showgirl as part of one of her "Behind Closed Doors" specials?
  • "WAKE UP, JOAN LUNDEN YOUR EGO'S ENORMOUS, AND YOUR BOOK IS A BORE" KATHLEEN RIZZO YOUNG. Buffalo News. Buffalo, N.Y.: Nov 11, 1998. pg. D.1

• Slick, 58, spearheaded a psychedelic scene that grew from a San Francisco phenomenon into an international movement, then became one of the few 1960s stars to weather the '70s by helping to transform the band into Jefferson Starship. And she's lived to tell the story in an autobiography, "Somebody to Love?," published this month by Warner Books and written with friend Andrea Cagan. The literary venture wasn't exactly her idea, though. "I didn't want to write a book. They made me do it," she said.
  • "People in the News;" Las Vegas Review - Journal. Las Vegas, Nev.: Sep 8, 1998. pg. 5.B

• If what Robin Williams says is true -- that if you remember the '60s, you weren't really there -- Grace Slick was there after all. She certainly doesn't remember much in this tame, chatty memoir, short on details, absent of feeling, written in a perky style more appropriate to women's magazines like Redbook than a gritty rock 'n' roll survivor like Slick....The fear and shock Slick experienced is clearly visible in "Gimme Shelter," the film of that disastrous day, but don't look for it in "Somebody to Love?." In the end, she resorts to quoting Chronicle columnist Ralph J. Gleason rather than plumb her own emotions....This strange dissociation from her own life continues through discussions of her alcoholism and recovery -- even in episodes like her 1994 arrest by Mill Valley police, after she aimed an empty shotgun at officers summoned to her house by an equally inebriated boyfriend. Ranting about saving lab animals, she often comes off more like a harmless eccentric than a sharp intellect. But Grace Slick remains one of rock's great dames, even if she was coaxed into writing a book she didn't really put her heart into. (The reported advance for the book was $1 million). Her saucy rejoinders and libertine spirit have always been a refreshing blast of comic relief for a rock scene that customarily insists on taking itself much more seriously than it should. Too bad her book isn't more like her.
  • "A Not-So-Slick Memoir by Grace / The bright, insouciant voice of Jefferson Airplane's lead vocalist comes out flat;" REVIEWED BY Joel Selvin. San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco, Calif.: Sep 6, 1998. pg. 3

• Most remarkable of all, she's lived to tell the story in a casual and often hilarious autobiography, "Somebody to Love?," published this month by Warner Books. Written with Slick's friend Andrea Cagan, the book is a conversational, languidly outrageous document of one of the best and worst times in American history. It's also a compendium of backstage gossip and loopy psychedelic philosophy....She admits, though, that the whole literary venture wasn't her idea. "I didn't want to write a book. They made me do it," she says. "About two years ago my lawyer told me, `You ought to be doing something.' I said, `I am doing something. I'm drawing and painting.' He said, `You ought to write a book.' I said, `I don't want to write a book.' But he gave me the name of an agent friend of his anyway. She talked my ear off for nine hours about how fabulous it would be. So I finally gave in."
  • "Gracefully Outrageous / Rock's original high priestess simply refuses to mellow with age;" Neva Chonin, Chronicle Staff Writer. San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco, Calif.: Sep 6, 1998. pg. 34

• As entertaining as Somebody to Love? is -- and Gracie can dish dirt with the best of them -- fans of her more serious artistic side may be disappointed in how little the music is discussed. We learn which of the band members she slept with, and even how one of them is proportioned, but we aren't told her favorite songs, her most meaningful lyrics, or what she considers her artistic successes and failures. Which is a pity and a loss. Jefferson Airplane, and Grace Slick in particular, were among rock's most radical political voices during the '60s and early '70s. You wouldn't know it from reading this book. Grace is far more interested today in her animal rights activism than in revolution. In Somebody to Love? the sex and drugs are in plenitude. It's the rock and roll that is in meager supply.
  • "ROCK MUSIC;" Tom Graves. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Aug 9, 1998. pg. X.06

• The bottom line, of course, is that mountain of legal bills, and says her lawyers agreed to a slice of whatever advance she can get "because they know I'm sitting on a pot of gold." She's called in Andrea Cagan, who ghostwrote Marianne Williamson's best-selling "A Return to Love."
  • "IT WAS JUST SOME GALS AT THE DORM WITH NOTHING MUCH TO DO" From wire reports Compiled by F. VULIN - of The Oregonian staff. The Oregonian. Portland, Or.: May 19, 1995. pg. A.02

• Convicted Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss says she's considering asking writer Andrea Cagan to help pen Fleiss' long-anticipated memoirs. Interesting, since Cagan's last ghostwriting gig was for a far different personality: New Age guru to the stars, Marianne Williamson's best-selling Return to Love.
  • Fleiss Checks Out Ghost-Writer to the Stars" Bill Zwecker. Chicago Sun - Times. Chicago, Ill.: May 16, 1995. pg. 30

More discussion

Very few of the reviews of Cagan's previous books have actually addressed the writing or research. (In addition to co-writing biographies with celebrities she's also cowritten a book with a celebrity dog trainer and written a book on how to apply cosmetics.) These are the only reviews I've found that actually get into the writing process. None of them do anything to add to Cagan's credence. She seems to have been mostly engaged in transcribing and polishing the tape-recorded reminiscences of Malibu residents. The fact that some of the books she's co-written has been best sellers is obviously due to the fame of the memoirists and not to her own skills as a writer or researcher. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of this? Are we going to critique the The Oregonian?Momento (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The point is that Cagan's previous efforts have not been lauded. While her clients may have led interesting lives, their books are noted for their omissions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether her books have been lauded or not is immaterial, we don't subject other sources to that subjective criteria.Momento (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure we do. If scholars cite a paper by another scholar it gains credence in the academic world. In this case, the publisher of PIP has no reputation whatsoever. The presumed reliability of the book rests on Cagan's shoulders alone. Is she up to the task of researching the life of an Indian guru who lead a controversial life that involves complicated spiritual and organizational issues? Well, some reviewers thought she wasn't up to the task of writing biographies of Joan Lunden or Grace Slick, people with whom she has far more in common. Further, we can see that in her own statement she acknowledges that her method is to basically interview her subjects, not conduct research. That's why I think it's appropriate to treat this as an autobiography. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find that an autobiography is written by the subject of the biography. In this case it wasn't.Momento (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It was compiled from tapes by the subject. It certainly does no reflect independent research or viewpoints. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh? That is not what the author says. Sure, Cagan used transcripted speeches for the quotes she mined and published in the book. 99% of the book is sourced to direct witnesses that went on the record. Excellent authorship ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

OMG, now we are in the business of literary critique. Although I appreciate the effort of Will Beback in listing reviews of Cagan's other books, I would argue that the strenous effort to diminish her standing as an author, while turning a blind eye to other sources biases and mis-information, is quite innapropiate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The point I think that is being made is that if editors want to assert that PIP should be considered a reliable source for the Rawat article, only based on it's purported "commercial success," which would require information about the publisher's initial print run and purchases, (where's the source for that?) then it's equally valid for an editor to demonstrate that many of Cagan's books were indeed not critical successes, based on the reviews above, the most important of which would be the New York Times Book Review. As far as I can tell, PIP wasn't even reviewed by the NYT Book Review, which is the hallmark for the success of any published work by an author in the U.S. PIP also did not it make the NYT's bestseller list, another hallmark of a book and author's success in the U.S. and abroad. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

To Jossi: We're not discussing other sources' biases or misinformation here. You've started threads about the biases of Foss & Larkin, Momento likes to mention how inaccurate the New York Times is, etc. This thread is about Cagan. The reason that it's important to consider reviews of her work is that she is the sole source of reliability for PIP. The publisher has no reputation for reliability. But here we find that Cagan has been accused by reviewers of major omissions and muddled writing. So we have a book published by a one-time publisher created by followers who've hired a celebrity ghostwriter known for mediocre writing. On the other hand, WP:V tells us to judge books by the reputations of their publishers. Following that policy leads us to the conclusion that PIP is not reliable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, Will. The quotes you post do not support your contentions, but we are getting used to that. The criticisms are mostly directed toward the subjects of the autobiographies. Cagan comes across as an editor helping non-writers to write, but having to accept what they wanted to put in their own life-stories. Anyway, this is not an autobiography. And WP:RS "tells us" that the word "source" can refer to the publisher, the author, or the work itself. Any one of them can validate a reference. This work is thoroughly validated. Rumiton (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS says: Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. This is non-academic, but it isn't from a respected mainstream publication. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

More of the same. "Particularly" is not the same as "only." Cagan has an established reputation as a biographer, even if it may not be unanimous. Rumiton (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please find a 3rd-party source that says Cagan has a reputation for research and reliability. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please find a 3rd-party source that says that the sources we use in these articles have a reputation for research and reliability. 05:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal opinions do not count here. By all measures this is a book that can be used as a source for this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal opinions do not count here. There would not be this much discussion over a book that "by all measures" can be used. The statement is almost humourous placed at the end of the vast amount of discussion regarding it already on this page. -- Maelefique 21:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not by "all measures". The most important measure, per WP:V is the reputation of the publisher, and that's non-existent in this case. The book has huge, unexplained omissions, and obvious bias. By "no measures" can it be used as a source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

We have already discussed your argument about "omissions" which is your personal opinion. We have also discussed the fact that it is a sympathetic biography (although it does not spare the inclusion of numerous controversies). SO, I do not understand the repeating of the same arguments. What is obvious, that per policy, the book can be used as follows: for facts and figures not covered elsewhere without the need for attribution, for facts and figures that are mentioned elsewhere with full attribution if Cagan presents a competing view. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not my opinion that Cagan never refers to the DLM or EV by name even once. It's not my opinion that WP:V tells us to evaluate books based on the reputations of their publishers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I note too that you're setting an lower bar for the use of Cagan then you've set for far more reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What is your problem with the three independent publishers that have published the book in three European countries? What is your problem with a book about the life of PR that does not mention two organizations which he did not found? And if you speak of double standards, look at the mirror and see how you defend sources that are obviously biased and/or misleading. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The disassociation of Rawat with the DLM and EV is a fringe viewpoint. How many reliable sources about Rawat that are longer than a few paragraphs fail to mention either organization? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

???? What does have anything to do with this discussion? Cagan chose not to mention these organizations, sure. So what? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It does mention the "organization", just not by name, though key personnel like Mishler are referred to, by name, with reference to their role in the organization, and the org's notable exploits like Millennium. The DLM was founded when Rawat was a minor; at one point, the org apparently told him he needn't show up in the office, because he was a minor. So I don't have a major beef with the name not being mentioned in this bio. Like Vassyana said elswhere in a different context, a source's bias does not make it unreliable or unusable per se, it just requires circumspection in how to use it. I think we should concentrate on parameters for that, rather than arguing all or nothing. At any rate, it seems not right to want to exclude the one recent biography of the man there is. Jayen466 06:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like to remind editors that that saying "So what?" isn't an argument. The fact is that Cagan doesn't name Prem Rawat's organization(s) Divine Light Mission and Elan Vital makes the author less credible as a biographer. That is an enormous omission of fact in a book that's being purported as "the most complete...exhaustively researched biography of Prem Rawat." This article is about the leader of an NRM. The author of the biography chose to omit the name of the NRM. That's a huge omission in a non-fiction work. If Cagan calls the NRM organizations "the organizations" and doesn't name them, one cannot assume which organizations to which she refers, just because someone already knows the names of the organizations! Omissions of fact are the same as omissions by lying. It's still a lie; it's still misleading by the author. Sylviecyn (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• In response to Jayen: Prem Rawat was an emancipated minor at age 16 and that would have occurred in December 1973 (he was married in 74) therefore he was a legal adult. He was also, for a time, the legally named, "Chief Minister" of Divine Light Mission in the U.S. That changed eventually, but he was legally attached to the organization, DLM. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The article on which all of us here are working states confidently, albeit without a source, that Rawat became an emancipated minor in April 1974, aged 16. The Indian DLM was founded in 1960, and the US branch formed in 1971. Please provide sources for his "legal attachment" to the DLM. These might be useful for the DLM article. Jayen466 13:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Just a reminder to please try to limit the use of <code>:::::::</code> where possible. It makes it impossible to read on a cellphone. And could someone please answer this. Thanks. Steve Crossin (contact) 05:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Jayen, we have plenty of sources for the subject becoming emanicapted at age 16. As for the relevance of the DLM, it was the family business. The family lived in the DLM ashram. When the subject (not his father) came to the U.S. and U.K. branches of the DLM were founded to support his work. The DLM bought him expensive homes, cars, and planes. It organized festivals to honor him, set up ashrams to house his followerss, and published magazines devoted to him. And Rawat didn't sit in a trance while these things were happening. He attended DLM meetings and he gave orders (agyas) on DLM stationary about the conduct of DLM business. There is a claim that Rawat fired Mishler, president of the DLM. How could he have done that if he didn't control the DLM? I cannot see any legitimate reason for a biographer to make the bizarre "choice" to ignore the organiztion that was so closely associated with her subject. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC) (First assertion struck through due to later discoveries. -W)
• Jayen, we have plenty of sources for the subject becoming emanicapted at age 16. Yes, and we say that happened in April 1974. A source that names that month might be useful to add to the article. As for ignoring the organization, honestly, have you read the book? I haven't read it from cover to cover, but just skimming through it, it describes various conflicts he had with Mishler, Dettmers and so on. How can you say it ignores the organization? The book describes him complaining about it, and about his deputies wanting to impose their own agenda on him. The sense that comes through is that he did not feel adequately represented by them. Jayen466 18:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • So why did the biographer fail to name the "organization"? What organization is Rawat complaining about? What organization did he feel inadequately represented by? Jossi is arguing that Rawat had nothing to with the DLM. Do you agree with that position? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The Indian DLM was founded in 1960, when Rawat was 2 or 3; clearly he had nothing to do with founding it. The U.S. DLM was started up in 1971, when Rawat was 13; again, it seems implausible that he would have taken a leading role in that, and we have sources that say that his family managed the movement's business and legal affairs in the early years. So he clearly set up neither the Indian nor the U.S. Mission, and it seems that from 1974 through 1976 he parted company with most everyone who had ever held a leading position in the DLM.
  • One thing I trust we are all agreed on, Jossi included, is that the Mission promoted him as its guru.
  • Note that even if Cagan's book did have Rawat claim that he had nothing to do with the NRM known as DLM, that in itself would be notable and of interest in his bio.
  • And have you read the book now or not? --Jayen466 22:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated to mediation

An interesting new media article describing the evolution of Misplaced Pages's Prem Rawat article, particularly since last year, has been published at the Independent Media Center. Ratbag web site sparks Misplaced Pages brouhaha. Administrators, please add a link to this article at the top of this page next to the link to Cade Metz.W Crub (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Indymedia postings aren't usable as sources. Thanks though. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Hmm, that article does give me some intersting background information..... Steve Crossin (contact) 06:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Such as? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Francis, with respect, I have a right to read background information in the area without being questioned about it. It doesn't alter how I'll handle this case, and being a thorough mediator, or at least, hopefully one that tries to have a lot of background information related to the case, it doesn't change how I mediate. And noting that I'm mentioned in that article does now show me just how big of an impact this case may have. I suppose there will be more of this to come. Thanks, Steve Crossin (contact) 06:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC) The question was entirely innocent: I saw no background info that wasn't already covered in (for instance) Misplaced Pages's ArbCom case on Rawat. I was interested in what you learnt from the article that wasn't already covered in our own media. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Alright, I apologise. Admittedly, I haven't reviewed the entire arbitration case, but one thing that has become very obvious, as I already see my name on that article, albeit in a comment. I have come to realise one thing. Once this case is over, there's going to be some discussion over how I handled this case, and it's probably going to be both positive and negative. I suppose I should've expected this to happen. Steve Crossin (contact) 06:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC) I sympathise with the feeling, so I apologise too. At one time I entered this debate without involvement whatsoever. Didn't take too long, now Indymedia describes me as being in "a phalanx of cynical editors". I think Will's words were the wisest: Indymedia postings aren't usable as sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC) I really know how you feel, Francis. The use of Indymedia isn't new. But remember, it isn't Indymedia describing you, it's an anonymous coward using Indymedia to try to discredit you. This is an old tactic, used before, so consider the source, which is best ignored (based on my experience). I also think the link to the article should be removed from this page. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC) No the use of Indymedia is not new, Rawat's detractors have often tried to use the site to promote their version of history. I saw no attack on Francis in that particular Indymedia article. However, it is interesting to note the toxic bile entering the dialogue on this page as soon as certain contributors post. The real nature of a disposition never fails to materialize, sadly. I suggest this discussion would be better served by the omission of such ugly and inflammatory terms such as 'anonymous coward'. W Crub (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC) I have no idea what Indymedia is, is it something like the Register? I notice its link has been removed, and good riddance. Anyway we should just proceed with what we are doing with a continuing careful regard to WP:BLP and the other considerations. Rumiton (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)