Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 23

Attribution
We should be cautious with sources and attribute the cites to the sources rather than asserting these as facts. The edit "Prem Rawat claimed that she was "an incarnation" of the Hindu goddess Durga", is mistaken. For NPOV and ATTm, it shoud read "In 1974, Rawat married his then 24-year-old secretary. According to Thomson's Gale Biography Resource Center, "Maharaj (sic) married his 24-year-old secretary, whom he described as an incarnation of the Hindu goddess Durga." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine. Just note that this is a very reputable secondary source.  Smee 17:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Maybe. I am not disputing that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (Note that the name "Durga Ji" was given to his wife by Prem Rawat when they married. That does not mean that he believed she was an incarnation of anyone... ) Most probably a mistake by Thomson Gale. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a secondary source for your new assertion? Please note that I have provided direct quoting as to the Thomson Gale entry, for comparison.  They clearly state that he believed she was an incarnation of the Hindu Goddess Durga.  Smee 17:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
 * As you know, it is difficult to find a source that says "Prem Rawat did not believe his wife was an incarnation of a goddess"... But we can certainky find sources that describes her given name as "Durga Ji". There is a new biographical book about Prem Rawat, that is now in the top 50 at Amazon.com . By looking at the table of contents, hopefully we will find new material there . ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't you think it is possible that both are true? That he believed her to be the incarnation of the Hindu goddess Durga, and also had her change her name to Durga Ji, in honor of this belief that he held?  Smee 17:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
 * I can only give you my opinion, Smee. I do not think even for a moment that PR believed that his wife was a re-incarnation of anyone. I am saying this on the basis of his many addresses (that Hindus find blasphemous, BTW) in which he always speaks of having one lifetime, and in which he dismisses the concept of re-incarnation. But again, that is only an opinion from someone that has heard hundreds of his addresses over the years. Let's leave it at this and discuss the article instead. You can email me if you want to talk about this further. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he changed his public image of his personal belief system since his marriage, and that that was what he believed and asserted to be true in 1974... Smee 18:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
 * An opinion as good as any.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If an idea is verified and substantiated by a number of independent sources, "opinion" is a bit of a misnomer. Mael-Num 21:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Caution is certainly advised. For example, Andrea Cagan's new book is no authority whatsoever on (inter alia) the subject of Hindu marriage traditions. She says that Rawat named his bride " ... at the wedding, in keeping with Indian tradition, after the Hindu Goddess Durga.[41]"

Show evidence that: (a) Hindu brides are 'traditionally' given a new name in the Hindu marriage ceremony; and (b) their new name is "Durga" (as Cagan's poorly-written paragraph implies).

If no evidence is forthcoming, I propose to delete the reference.

While we're on the subject of Cagan's book, I'd like to point out that the lack of impartiality evident in it should be acknowledged if the supposed 'neutrality' of Wikipedia is to be more than a mere empty boast. No respected and authoritative encyclopedia should ever dream of being unwise enough to quote from such a "vanity press" publication without applying stringent checks on the supposed veracity of its claims. As is evidenced in this instance. Revera 16:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You may be mistaken. Note that sources do not have to be "impartial" to be cited. In Wikipedia we describe viewpoints as they appear on reliable, published sources, and we do not make judgments on the "veracity" of any claims made. See WP:ATT and WP:NOTTRUTH. As it pertains to your assessment of Cagan's book being a vanity publication, you should note that self-published publications are indeed not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia (with some exceptions). Nevertheless, you should also note that the definition of Vanity press does not apply to this book either, as it is widely available to the public and is not self-published. Is Cagan's book sympathetic to Prem Rawat? Maybe. But that is no ground for dismissal of its material as sources. Regarding the specifics about the cite about "Durga", what can be done is to attribute that statement to Cagan, rather than asserting it as a fact. Instead of "naming her at the wedding, in keeping with Indian tradition, after the Hindu Goddess Durga" we can say: "According to Cagan, Rawat named her at the wedding after the Hindu Goddess Durga, in keeping with Indian tradition". That is what WP:A is all about. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not mistaken, jossi. Caution is always advisable.  Especially when you start identifying yourself with Wikipedia ("In Wikipedia we describe ...")


 * What's so reliable about Cagan's work? She's simply paid by the subjects of her biographies to paint them in a favourable light.  And what's so reliable about the "Mighty River Press", a (premie) publisher's first ever venture into book publishing?  As a publisher, their track record is unproven.  For all you know there could be lawsuits for libel and defamation heading their way tomorrow!  A "reliable published source" it ain't!


 * Again, your lack of impartiality in imputing that they have a reputation for reliability - with NO EVIDENCE FOR THIS WHATSOEVER - speaks volumes!


 * I'm sorry, mate, but given your current performance, sooner or later Prem Rawat is going to realise that you're less of an asset to him than he once thought, whether you're his webmaster or not.


 * As for the Durga thing - it still reads that all wives of Hindus are given that name when they wed. WRONG!  AGAIN!!
 * Revera 17:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please lower your tone, if you could, and avoid making personal comments about other editors. You are welcome to discuss the article, but not welcome to discuss the editors. Also, I am not your "mate", and there is no need to SHOUT. Yes, I identify with this project because I care about it, see my user page for information about my involvement in Wikipedia. Regarding your other comments, I did not "impute" anything, Revera. I was just pointing out your mistake in saying that a source needs to be "impartial" to be cited. That is not the case as per the links to our policies that I provided for your benefit. Regarding the Durga thing, I can see that the way that the sentence is written, may be understood as "all wifes are given the name Durga" when what actually is said is that they are given a name. That could be easily corrected. And lastly, please do not make legal threats in these pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Cagan's biography does not seem a reputable source from what I have read about it. Andries 17:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Read where and what, Andries? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please respond before plastering the article with that tag. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I do not have to respond here first, before tagging, because there is a burden on the editor to indicate that the publication is reliable, as you yourself have told me on sooooo many occasions. Cagan's book is published by Mighty river press that has published only one book. Clearly it is not a reputable publisher. Andries 19:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a bogus interpretation of policy. The fact that this is a book that is sympathetic to Prem Rawat, or the fact that this is the first book published by this publisher, are no grounds for asserting lack of reliability. Note that even in cases of self-published sources (which this book is certainly not), material from such sources are acceptable for articles under certain caveats. So, there is no need to be more cautious than with any other source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, a publishing company that has published only one book can never be a reputable publisher, unless it is affiliated with a University or something like that. I agreed with such reasoning in another article though the book supported my POV. Andries 20:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not know what the context was for that other article, Andries, but I do not see any such policy that disregards a source because its publisher is a small/new publisher. You may want to ask at WP:ATT if you need clarification on this point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I also object to your usual way to dealing with disputes. Editwarring is not an option, Andries. You know it, you got in trouble for doing that, and you persist with the same pattern. Why? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I asked a question as you proposed. You started with reverting. Andries 20:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, no, no, Andries. I reverted once to show my disagreement. That is an acceptable action. Continuing reverting to assert a viewpoint is editwarring, which you did. That is why we have dispute resolution process, so that you do not have to editwar. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Lower my tone" ? Are you sure that's what you meant to say?!   Anyway, let's stick to the facts. Where's the evidence that Hindu brides are 'traditionally' given a new name in the Hindu marriage ceremony?


 * The marriage ceremony is given in detail at http://www.vivaaha.org/newpage3.htm. There is no mention of such a renaming.  If someone can come up with evidence for it, fine.  If not, it shouldn't be in the article.


 * So much for using Cagan's material as a supposedly reliable source! And incidentally, my observation about possible libel writs was not intended as a legal threat.  The book is certainly contentious, and does include a very serious allegation that certain individuals were complicit in a 'phishing' operation.  An accusation like that could easily result in writs flying, especially since it originated in a misreading - by Cagan - of a post written by the victim of the crime!  In her confusion, she has ended up accusing the victim of perpetrating the offense!  In print!


 * A question, if I may - if original research, cult propaganda and unsourced second-hand internet gossip isn't valid in a Wikipedia article, how come such material suddenly becomes acceptable to quote from, simply because someone like Cagan has quoted from such sources in her published book? Just because it's in print makes it OK?  That can't be right.


 * Are you really so sure that Wikipedia editors should be treating Cagan's book on Rawat as a reliable source?
 * Revera 12:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:ATT. It is all there. And yes, Cagan's book is most definitively a valid source for this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you think so? It was not published by a reputable publisher nor have you provided any indication of editorial oversight. May be it is good to remind you of your repetitive lectures about about high-quality sources. Andries 15:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have explained this already several times in previous comments. Here it is again: (a) Being a small publisher is not grounds for assessing a publisher as reliable or not; (b) Cagan is a best-seller author or biographies; (c) You made ungrounded claims about this book being self-republished or of dubious reliability, and my response was that even if that was the case, WP:ATT describe exceptions in which these sources can be used in articles. In summary, this book can be used as a source for this biography. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation that I consider, as usual, completely unconvincing
 * ad. a) Small is an euphemism. The company has published only one book
 * ad. b) confusing popularity with reputability is wrong
 * ad. c) What I meant to say is that there is no way to assess the reputability of the book when the publishing company has only published one book
 * Andries 16:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have already argued that the fact that the publisher has published only one book with publishing date Jan 2007, does not mean anything in particular, only that it is only their first book and that the published is a young one. Nevertheless, let's follow your logic, Andries, and assume for a moment that we cannot assess the reputability of that source. OK? My argument is that even if that is the case (which I dispute), that is no grounds for an automatic dismissal of the book as a source. See Questionable sources. If you disagree with these exceptions, please make your point at WP:ATT and not here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:ATT states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true".
 * Can it be that such a remarkable lack of integrity on the part of a supposedly reliable encyclopedia can go unchallenged?  Still, I'd say the onus is on you Jossi (if you are going to use excerpts from this - the first book that Mighty River press has ever published) to establish its supposed reliability first. First things first, surely?.   Revera 23:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC).


 * I know WP:ATT quite well, Revera. But this discussion is becoming quite repetitive and boring, really. As I have argued before, there is no reason to pre-suppose lack of reliability on the basis of this being the first book of a young publishing house. See WP:ATT. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Jossi, may I ask - what are your criteria for judging whether something is reliable or not? There ARE criteria, if the word is to have any meaning whatsoever.  And to judge from the mistakes brought to light so far in this publication, it certainly is not earning itself the epithet of 'reliability'.


 * Some sort of track record is needed first, before either reliability can be attributed, or alternatively lack of reliability can be imputed. There must be checks and measures for this, if Wikipedia is to have any credibility at all - especially in matters of biography.


 * That you find such an important matter to be "boring" raises concerns too.
 * 80.189.120.230 09:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "What's so reliable about Cagan's work? She's simply paid by the subjects of her biographies to paint them in a favourable light." This is a open libel against an author. Revera, would you rather like to source your statement, rather than discussing your personal opinions and making allegations. You are certainly invited by the community to improve the article, but not to push your personal opinions. --Taxed123 (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

references and footnotes
For those new at this article, please note that the separation of footnotes and references (in which the footnotes are based) was done as a response to a peer review of this article. Please keep as is. Thanks. peer review 1 archive, and peer review 2 archive. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This last edit dispute about the location of the sister links is, what can I say? Silly? I will appreciate if editors assume good faith rather than looking for "POV pushing" in all edits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * One could say the same about POV pushing for yourself. Don't be so quick to judge the motivations of others.  Smee 19:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Sure. If we can all do that, that would be best. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Re. "separation of footnotes and references (...) was done as a response to a peer review of this article. (...) peer review 1 archive, and peer review 2 archive." - I had a quick glance at both peer reviews, and couldn't find the recommendation. Could you be more precise?

Whatever the ideal or goal you're working towards, currently the list of numbered footnotes contains a host of references (in the meaning of WP:CITE, WP:V, etc). A few dozen *references* were added by the merger from the criticism article. A section title should reflect the content of a section (wikipedians are generally not in the business of window-dressing). I'm going to try another solution, hope you like it. --Francis Schonken 09:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What needs to be done is to move all biblio refs to the appropriate format as the refs that came from the merged article are not in the same format as all the other refs. It is tedious work (I did all the others a few months ago), but I will do this once the article stabilizes a bit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

From Jossi's talkpage
Don't make it appear as if Commons, Wikiquote and Wikisource are "Official websites of Prem Rawat" Regarding your edit:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=102026795

The visible layout, once the page is saved, makes it appear as if the Sister Project templates belong to the section titled "Official websites of Prem Rawat" I already remarked that twice in an edit summary: Again, I'm not completely happy with my solution to that problem. Likewise, I could live with Smeelgova's solution, without feeling anything near to enthousiasm about it. But the solution where the sister project templates appear in the "Official websites of Prem Rawat" section is quite unacceptable. Whatever the unwritten or written rules you refer to, please use your creativity or whatever, but don't make it appear as if some Wikimedia projects are associated with "Official websites of Prem Rawat". --Francis Schonken 19:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * sorry for the layout but the interwiki-templates should not appear along the "Official websites" links
 * Again, I don't know how to solve this best technically, but the transwiki templates should not appear side-by-side as if they belong to official Prem Rawat websites. They're not.
 * Sorry. I may have missed these comments. Usually sister links go at the bottom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Check my edit, and let me know if it works for you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the Francis Schonken version above, of Again, I don't know how to solve this best technically, but the transwiki templates should not appear side-by-side as if they belong to official Prem Rawat websites. They're not. Smee 19:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC).


 * First, please note that was not my intention. Please WP:AGF. And second, please note my last edit in which I removed the title "official sites", as per usage in other comparable articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is a comparable site that uses the convention of "Official sites" and, by the way, has a lot more critical links in its external links section. Sylvia Browne. I propose we add some more critical links, for balance. I will do so. Smee 19:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Some of the links you added, Smee, violate WP:EL. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If "some" of the links violate WP:EL, then remove those that do, and keep those that do not. Smee 19:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Wiki policy
'''The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one'''. Only allowing the expansion of "critic's material" is clearly a breach of Wiki policy.Momento 19:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As are attempts by individuals to remove as much criticism as possible from a subject in which they have had direct experiences. Smee 19:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
 * On the contrary, it is the responsibility of all Wiki editors to follow Wiki policy and that means "Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one".Momento 21:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your apparent inability to understand the written English word disqualifies you as a valid interpreter of wikipedia rules. I'd strongly urge you to leave the reading comprehension to your fellow editors. Mael-Num 21:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No need for interpretaion M-N, Wiki policy is very clear.Momento 21:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Very good, then we agree. Stop reinterpreting the policies to suit your POV despite every other editor involved telling you that what you're doing is wrong. Mael-Num 22:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the choice of listening to editors or listening to Wiki policy - Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view - I'll choose Wiki policy every time.Momento 22:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Where is the bias or malice? It appears to exist only between your ears. Mael-Num 22:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The bias occurs when editors take "critical" comments from half a dozen scholars, give them headings and expand their opinions into paragraphs whilst allowing 20 other scholars only their name.Momento 23:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As I have pointed out before, it is inherantly necessary to offer significant critical commentary in an article on a subject. To do otherwise is to not tell the whole story.  The examples I gave before of String Theory and Mother Theresa (among several others) support this.  Or to put it a different way, are you saying that no critical opinion of any source should exist anywhere in Wikipedia? Mael-Num 02:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

How is this an extraordinary claim?
"Rawat married his then 24-year-old secretary [whom he] claimed that she was 'an incarnation' of the Hindu goddess Durga."

This doesn't seem like an extraordinary claim. Does it seem unlikely that he would be unfamiliar with that particular mythological figure, or that he wasn't in the habit of proclaiming divinity left and right in the 1970's (because there is extraordinary evidence of that). Or is it more likely that a small number of people who are concerned with the perception of Rawat would prefer that this unfortunate detail be omitted? Mael-Num 22:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, it's an "exceptional claim that requires exceptional sources" because it is a "report of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended". Rawat has always maintained that people only have one life and has never expressed a belief in re-incarnation. No other scholar has mentioned it and they would have if re-incarnation was something thhat he promoted. Therefore it is an exceptional claim that needs "exceptional sources".Momento 23:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Incarnation doesn't imply reincarnation. The concepts are distinct. Mael-Num 23:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Incarnation is reincarnation if the incarnated has previously existed.Momento 23:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there any indication of the claim that this person is twice-incarnated? Mael-Num 03:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Now,if no one miinds, I am going to remove the redundant passage about Rawat getting married in 1974.Momento 23:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I mind. How is it redundant? Mael-Num 23:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Because there were two paragraphs that discussed the marriage of Rwat in 1974. If you compare the edits you will see I have removed one.Momento 23:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And please, stop with the nicety of asking if something is okay, and waiting all of nine minutes before forging ahead and doing what you please when there is clearly opposition to it. Mael-Num 23:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So you oppose deleting duplicate lisdts and redundant paragraphs?Momento 23:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If the information is redundant. Are you sure that this is the case?  It looks like he married two diffent people.  One was 24 and a secretary and one was 25 and a flight attendant.  People remarry, and I'm not familiar with the details outside of what I have read.  Mael-Num 02:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is legal in Amercia to marry two people in the one year. A new biogaphy about Rawat "Peace is Possible" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0978869494?ie=UTF8&tag=mightyriverpress-20&link_code=as3&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=0978869494) has just been released and that will clarify whether Johnson was 24 or 25, a secretary or a flight attendent.Momento 02:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's legal in America to marry a new person every day of the week, provided your previous marriage is somehow ended. It's a pretty liberal place like that. Mael-Num 02:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason for the two marriages is a little more prosiac. Smeelova added a new paragraph without realising the subject was already covered.Momento 08:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring accomplishes nothing
... besides earning you a temporary loss of your editing privileges. Victor, and Mael: I have reported your violation of WP:3RR policy at WP:AN/3RR. Sometimes the only way editors learn is the hard way. In the future, revert only once if you must and then discuss in talk and seek consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a case of WP:3RR if someone is removing vandalism. I resent the implication that I am willfully violating rules when 2 other admins have agreed that I didn't do anything wrong.  Throughout the alleged "edit war" I was calling for discussion to no avail.  I even went to users' talk pages to attempt to reason.  No responses were made.  I did the right thing, and experienced wikipedians (admins) acknowledged that.  Mael-Num 02:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You were not removing vandalism, you were editwarring. Please continue the conversation at WP:AN/3RR were your case ie being reviewed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have expressed my argument over and over again in the talk pages. Essentially, it is against Wiki policy for editors to give undue influence to one side of a story and ignore the other. Twenty five scholars have written about Rawat and yet some editors insist on giving six critical scholars headline status and a full paragraph to expound on critical comments whilst 19 non-negative scholars are reduced to just their names. That is unacceptable editorial bias and unacceptable to Wikipedia.Momento 02:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't bias. If you feel that those people need to have more said of their writings, then your remedy is obvious.  Write about them. Mael-Num 03:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why don't you, Mael? I have provided material that you can add, at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars. Show us that you are not biased. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it is not my feeling that those people are underepresented. Why are you accusing me of bias?  Mael-Num 03:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me understand, Mael. Are you saying that Barret, Hunt, Geaves, Downton, Chryssides, and others are not under represented? I would encourage you to read the text in the article and compare it with the text I made available at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars, and then present a good argument rather than saying "Is not my feeling". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know them, so I don't know. I certainly don't think that everyone who's ever said anything ever about PR ("Hey, he's got a really nice hat!") needs to be recorded here.  I do think that an article about any significantly controversial topic should have some time spent exploring the controversy.  I do think that attempts to mask, marginalize, obfuscate, or silence such controversy are wrong (possibly stemming from my American idealism) and academically dishonest.  Most people think Mother Theresa was a saint, but a small minority think that she was a terrible person with a penchant for schadenfreude.  The former group would very likely love to silence the latter, but it is their right to have their small voice of criticism heard, and our responsibility to protect that voice (so long as they can back their claims up).


 * Rawat isn't "significantly contraversial". He may have been the subject of a lot of media interest in the 70s but that was largely because of his age. There has been hardly any interest in the 80s, 90's and this decade and no contraversy. The majority of criticism of Rawat came from tabloid media and Christian scholars from the 70s.Momento 09:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the extensive references and information given on the subject clearly show that there is at least some controversy. Mael-Num 21:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I can see how you could get that impression but look at the Stephen Hunt article at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars. It has 700 words about Rawat and about 20 words about what critics say and yet Hunt was listed as a "Scholarly Critic". Dig a bit deeper M-N, you'll find that there is very little controversy about Rawat except for the media and Christian beat ups of the 70s.Momento 22:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As related to the above comments, Momento said essentially that we're ignoring 19 out of 25 scholars' writings. I responded "Hey...rather than delete the other 6, start writing about the 19".  As it wasn't my complaint to begin with, it's kinda weird that you would tell me how to fix it.  Even stranger that you would level a claim of bias against me.  Now that I've fully explained my position, and I feel that it is a position that you as an admin must necessarily agree with, I think I am due an apology.  But I won't hold my breath.  Mael-Num 05:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not claim that you are biased, Mael. I said: "show us that you are not biased" by adding material to the article to improve upon it. As for Mother Teresa, I have edited that article quite a bit. Yes, there are three notable people (although I would argue that some of them aren't) that make terrible accusations against Teresa, and these are listed as such in the article with proper attention to WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, "show us that you are not biased" assumes that I have something to show, with the implication being bias. Thus, you have accused me of bias, despite your backpeddling now through semantics.  No loss because, as I said, I'm not holding my breath waiting.
 * As for the MT bit, there's only three people in the entire world that have something bad to say about her? That blows my mind because if it were only three people out of about six billion, I'm sure I'd have never heard of it (and no, I've never read the WP article).  Anyway, as you can see from experience with the article, my point about the need to allow for critical commentary is necessary has been made.  Even for people as respected as Mother Theresa or Pope John Paul II or subjects as seemingly certain as gravity.  Mael-Num 06:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, ammended to three notable people. Point taken.  There's probably more out there though (heck, I saw at least a couple on Penn and Teller's show and I bet they didn't book everyone in the world).  Anyway, and more importantly...are we in agreement on what is responsible in this case?Mael-Num 06:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In that show, Christopher Hitchens was there, the most notable Teresa critic. In Wikipedia we only report on significant viewpoints made by notable people, present them if they are published in reliable an verifiable publications, and attribute their viewpoints to them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I remember him, and he brought a good amount of scotch and cigarettes. There were other sources on the subject, too.  I don't want to diverge into a discussion on Bullshit!, but in my opinion, they seem to do a good amount of research for their presentations.  And as you can see, the Wikipedia article on their show also has a criticism section.  All I'm saying is that this article should have one too.  Mael-Num 21:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Any significant viewpoints by notable people, published in verifiable and reliable sources, be these critical or not, should be included in this article as per WP:NPOV (within the caveats of WP:BLP). I have tried to provide material (and I will continue to do so) at [[Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars. Hope you can join me and others in improving the article, rather than editwarring. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, as a possible remedy, you may want to consider going here and reporting this article to the BLP noticeboard if you truly think that the WP:BLP rules are being violated. It will ensure that additional eyes are brought in to investigate and weigh all parties' claims. Mael-Num 03:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ron Geaves
Hey, am I violating any copy-rights by offering a scanner-copy .pdf-file of Ron Geave's article From Divine Light Mission to Elan Vital and Beyond to genuinely interested editors? The original is expensive and protected against copying and forewarding, so I figure not too many people have really read it. Maybe that's why Ron Geaves is not mentioned among the "scholarly opinions", or is he? He has certainly more to say on the matter than some of the redundant mainstream bores that are being given space among the scholars and critics. Please help me with this problem, and, if it's legally o.k. and you want a copy, leave me your e-mail-address, and I'll be happy to serve.--Rainer P. 15:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Reiner, Welcome back. I may have a OCRed version of that document that I could place at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars for a while until we manage to summarize and add to the article. I will let you know If I find the text version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Added excerpts from this paper to Talk:Prem_Rawat/scholars. Of interest is Geaves' response to Foss and Larkin's paper mentioned in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Let me please also turn your (and any interested editor's) attention to a very knowledgeable and more recent article by Ron Geaves: "Globalization, charisma, innovation, and tradition: An exploration of the transformations in the organisational vehicles for the transmission of the teachings of Prem Rawat (Maharaji)", 2006, Journal of Alternative Spiritualities and New Age Studies, 2 44-62. This one I cannot even print once, but only read it on screen, and it is certainly worth reading, at http://www.asanas.org.uk/files/002geaves. I have placed it among Bibliographical references.--Rainer P. 12:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I will read and see if I can come up with some useful excerpts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A quote from Words to avoid
Words to avoid has:"Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between 'proponents' and 'opponents'. It also creates a hierarchy of fact - the main passage is 'true' and 'undisputed', whereas the rest are 'controversial' and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate. Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than 'distilling' them out into separate sections that ignore each other."This is also an issue that should be addressed after the merge of the separate criticism article. Since I'm no expert in anything related to Prem Rawat, I couldn't do much more than grouping the positive aspects of "reception" (followers/practitioners, reception, media appearances) with the critical aspects as subsections of the same Prem Rawat section, in a first step. "Reception" sections (grouping positive and negative reactions to the topic) are not a problem. (PS: if the article is ever split again, the split should not again be "criticism" against the rest, but "Reception of Prem Rawat", grouping positive and negative reception, would be an option).

But the present "Reception" section of the article is still divided in positive and negative reception subtopics. These should be merged. E.g. "Media attention" would be a viable subtopic of "Reception" describing notable/verifiable media coverages and media appearances of Prem Rawat, *without sectioning off* positive media attention given to Prem Rawat from negative. A chronological order of notable media appearances and coverage would, e.g., be much more preferable. --Francis Schonken 16:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Francis. I would argue that throughout the article (before the "criticism" article merger) efforts were made to intertwine all elements positive and negative, such as in the succession aspects, the family split, etc. Now that the merge has been completed, we should evaluate how to integrate that material in the best way possible. Note that many biographies of living people in WP, have "criticism" sections, in which the chronology of the person's life is separate from specific controversies. See Mother Teresa, Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama., and that the wording on the guideline Words to avoid includes a passage from  the policy of WP:NPOV that reads:
 * "Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section. We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a reasonable idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such details."


 * I would argue that the passage above is the one more pertinent to this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know about this ambiguity, and tried to solve it once, naming it "currently the most problematic part of the WP:NPOV policy", here: Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 024
 * Without wanting to appeal the least bit to Jimbo's authority here (I wouldn't dare), I'd like to point you to the quotes in the Criticism section, including:"it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms."If we take this quote for its content, and not for who said it, and maybe call it the "troll magnet argument", then I'd say the troll magnet argument is something that has come up more recently than when WP:NPOV was originally written (and effectively calls for a rewrite of that paragraph of WP:NPOV).
 * Anyway, I'll probably never be a main contributor to the Prem Rawat article, so this is really something to sort out among the "main contributors", or at least, say, among those who have the article on their watchlist, whether it would be best in the current context to follow the ancient policy level mode of operation, or the newer, based-in-current-practice, idea.
 * I'd like to suggest to you all to try to imagine what would work best in the long run, in terms of stability of the article, avoidance of edit-warring, keeping as many contributors in as possible (instead of having to ask they'd be temporarily removed from the system), etc.
 * I'd also not take other articles as example, unless you're likewise sure they're NPOV, stable, well-referenced etc (even having gone through FA is no warranty: e.g. Igor Stravinsky was on main page FA not so long ago, and shortly after it was listed as highly undersourced). --Francis Schonken 17:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks again, Francis. Yes, sometimes Criticism sections become troll/POV magnets. There is a lively debate going on at Criticism about this very subject, that maybe other editors here will want to take a look at. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to see a subtle re-writing the article with the intention of improving its readability. Keeping all the indisputable facts but without the constant distraction of random editors inserting the POV throughout the article. In the past, you couldn't discuss a period of Rawat's life without being inundated with pro and con quotes from scholars until the section was an unreadable and unwieldy mess. On the point of the "Reception" headline, I didn't understand your itention or meaning and now that I do it think it seems a little odd. Anyway thanks for your help and advice Francis, your bold merge was a great help.Momento 19:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a reasonable argument, Francis, but I don't think I agree with all of it. I know that when I read an article on a subject that I am new to, and I hear a number of claims about that subject all coming from a certain point of view, I instinctively will seek out counter-claims.  For example, if reading about some hypothetical pollution control bill whose article offers only positive implications of the impact of the bill, I might start to think, "Isn't there anyone who thinks this is a  bad idea?"  Let's call these sort of readers "naturally skeptical".  I think it is helpful for articles to be structured in such a way to allow them to easily find counter-claims by grouping them under a subject header, rather than forcing them to hunt-and-peck through the whole text of the article to find what they are looking for.  I suggest that this is the reason for such an article layout.  There may be drawbacks, as you say, in possible interpretations and contextual implications of such a "pro-" and "con-" format, but the ease with which such information can be found outweighs these possible drawbacks, as ease of research is one of the primary goals of an encylopedia.  Mael-Num 21:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would invite you Mael, to make your arguments at Wikipedia_talk:Criticism where this is being discussed as we speak. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Tidying Up
I have removed generic Wiki links to dates, countries and common items as they are not necessary for the reader and the blue type disturbs the readability. Added some of Stephen J Hunt's article and removed badly quoted material from or about Thomson/Max Webber.Momento 07:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please for dates follow the Manual of Style (dates and numbers), in particular Manual of Style (dates and numbers), in order for readers' date preferences to work properly. --Francis Schonken 09:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Does that mean that every date should be linked so that if something happened on April 1, 2006 a rerader can be directed to April 1 and 2006. I just clicked on 10 December from the first senetnce of this article and got a very brief list of things that happened on 10 December but not Rawat's birth.Momento 09:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just follow the MoS guideline please, and if you want to dispute it, do so at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers): you'd get enough company there. But currently, that's how it works, see also readers' date preferences at meta. --Francis Schonken 09:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to argue about it but it seems a bit redundant. Anyone that wants to know what happened on December 10 can search December 10. Why link it? Very few articles seem to follow this practice. I'll go to the MoS talk page and see what's happening.Momento 10:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please apply the MoS/date preferences *as is*. Even if you would like to argue about it (which you say you don't, and for which the Prem Rawat talk page would not be the right venue anyhow), the MoS has to be applied until it changes. --Francis Schonken 11:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Momento: One link to a specific date is OK, but not multiple. For example: the first instance of December 10, 1957 should be wikilinked. Years, on their own, should be also linked only once (the first instance). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Err, no, that's not what WP:MOSDATE says:
 * December 10, 1957 should always be linked thus: December 10, 1957 even if it's 10 times on the same page, per WP:MOSDATE (note after discussion below: there *are* three exceptions to that rule discussed in that MoS section, none of which apply to Momento's changes, nor cover Jossi's reading above);
 * There's no rule that "Years, on their own, should be [...] linked only once (the first instance)": not linking a solitary year (that is a year without both day and month being present) can be OK too for a first mentioning of a year on a page, per WP:MOSDATE (the official guideline on the point of solitary year linking is "we agreed to disagree", several non-compatible principles can be taken into account). --Francis Schonken 16:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. In any case, MOSDATE is just a suggestion. I am sure you are aware that there are thens of thousands of articles does not follow these guidelines. Nevertheless, rather than doing these minutiae edits, why don't we focus in incorporating the scholarly opinion that has been placed at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars? We can expand on Barrett, Geaves, Hunt and all the others. That would be a better use of our time. When he article is stable, we can then proceed and do the cosmetic changes needed to comply with MOS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I incorporated some stuff from Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars into the Prem Rawat article this morning (a short excerpt of the Schnabel translation I had been working on with Andries);
 * Don't go around de-linking dates, certainly not the full dates: so I suppose your remark is rather directed at Momento who thought that at this point in time the "cosmetic" de-linking not covered by MoS was what was needed. --Francis Schonken 16:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, I disagree with your interpretation of MOSDATE. We could discuss this a Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), if you wish. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I only contend you know MOSDATE less well than I do, there's nothing wrong with my description above. Indeed, I can't recall having encountered you often in the multiple discussions I was involved in at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). That's no problem, one can't know it all, nor even be interested in it all (personally I curse the day I got interested in WP:MOSDATE). But rather first read WP:MOSDATE and WP:MOSDATE (and related stuff) before criticising my interpretation of these MoS sections. --Francis Schonken 16:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I did read these. And I am not "criticizing" your interpretation, only disagreeing with it. What I read is that "the date should almost always be linked". "Should almost always" is not "should always". And these guidelines are to be applied with common sense rather as than static, hard rules.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * True, "almost" always, but WP:MOSDATE lists the exceptions (bolding added):
 * There are some exceptions to the rule that dates with a month and a day should always be linked:
 * Using the date formatting feature in section headers or links to them complicates section linking, see date formatting.
 * On disambiguation pages, only the disambiguated articles should be linked, not explanatory text.
 * Within a quotation, the date should appear to all readers as it did in the source of the quotation.
 * Since "second occurence on the same page" is none of the exceptions listed in the MoS, and since the MoS is clear that "should always be linked" applies apart from the listed exceptions, I abbreviated to "always" above, as a response to your questionable interpretation of the MoS page.


 * Again, your comment above"Nevertheless, rather than doing these minutiae edits, why don't we focus in incorporating the scholarly opinion that has been placed at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars?"rather applies to Momento than to me. --Francis Schonken 17:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. you are right. If you want we can discuss these issues at the style guide talk page. My point is that as said in the lead: "like all style guides, attempts to encourage consistency and ease of reading. The guidelines here are just that: guidelines are not inflexible rules; one way is often as good as another." (my highlight). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "rather than doing these minutiae edits, why don't we focus in incorporating the scholarly opinion that has been placed at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars?" Momento made some minutae edits, which made the Prem Rawat page less conforming to the MoS. That's not the way ahead. There's nothing to discuss at the style guide talk page regarding that observation that only concerns the Prem Rawat page. --Francis Schonken 17:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We are in violent agreement, Francis. My invitation to discuss at MOS talk page was related to the multiple linking of same date again and again in an article (not this article). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Err, no, I still think you should withdraw your incorrect summary of non-existing guidance ("One link to a specific date is OK, but not multiple. For example: the first instance of December 10, 1957 should be wikilinked. Years, on their own, should be also linked only once (the first instance).") above. It muddied the waters, diverted focus to what was not at hand, and steered for an unneccessary deviation from MoS guidance. --Francis Schonken 18:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be the cause of disruption but Wiki policy is "if the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them". It is clearly unnecessary to link 10 December (as in the first sentence of this article) when all it leads to is a small list of birthdays (but not Rawat's), deaths and events. It provides no further info for the reader about Rawat. I can understand linking 11 September in an article about terrorisism but linking dates that provide no further info about the subject is surely a time to apply common sense not rules. "Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing".Momento 19:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Momento, WP:IAR should be used cautiously. I have added info at December 10 and at 1957. Readers may find interesting to see which other notable individuals were born in that year or date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jossi (talk • contribs) 19:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (@ Momento:) Again, making date preferences work has nothing to do with the content of the date article you're linking to. Visiting Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) would show anyone that a technical solution for making date preferences work *without* making a link to a date article is sought for. It doesn't exist yet, so the current guidance stays in place, until the moment it exists.


 * Anyway, it would be bad habit to have "17 December 1999", formatted with the day before the month, in one place of an article and "January 5, 1968", with the day after the month, in another place of the same article (note that I tricked date preferences in the linked date: what you'd see would otherwise depend on the date preferences you chose in your preferences settings, and then I couldn't make my point clear) --Francis Schonken 19:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wiki software is clever enough to display both December 10 as December 10 and 10 December as 10 December, based on date preferences set by users. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No idea what you mean. The point is: when some full dates are linked, while others are not, you may get an inconsistent layout throughout a page, depending on date preferences settings of the user who sees the page. So, apart from listed exceptions, all full dates should be linked: the day should be linked together with the month, and the year that is part of the full date should be linked separately. There's no exception for specific editors that want to edit on their most cherished pages. --Francis Schonken 10:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Incorporating material
I have incorporated material from the sandbox, for Hunt, Downton, Geaves and Barret, that hope are acceptable to other editors. There is more work to do, but I will wait to hear any comments before moving any further. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Jossi. two things. A friend has sent me a preview copy of the Andrea Cagan biography "Peace is Possible" about Prem Rawat. Can I quote from it as it is not yet in general release? And second, it seems to me that we agreed to not have a special "Criticism" section about Rawat but rather incorporate any worthwhile criticism in the artcle. I am not comfortable that scholars like Hunt are headlined in a "Criticism" section when he doesn't express a criticism at all but rather notes that there are critics.Momento 02:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding Cagan's book, I would say wait until you get a copy of the book, as "preview copies" or galleys are sometimes quite different from the final edition, and text and page numbers could have changed by the time the book is printed. We need page numbers and exact quotes for verifiability. As for the section name, it is called now "Scholarly opinions and criticism", not "Criticism". I am not 100% happy with this, but for now I would concentrate in incorporating more scholarly material and then see how we can improve/structure the article better, based on the material we have. One step at a time, Momento. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I haven't had much time in the last couple of days to help contribute. I did a tiny bit of copy-editing, and I have a suggestion for whomever contributed the Kent information.  The part about, "treats elsehwere in his book the criticism by the countercultural left on him in the 1970s" should probably be expanded.  It's well and good to say that he talks about it, but what does he say?  Is there more information in the sandbox?  And on that subject, where is it (and any talk pages) located?  Thanks in advance. Mael-Num 03:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Andries, if I am not mistaken, was the one that made available material from Kent's book. Maybe you can ask him to provide more material. If he does not have it, I can always check my local University library, but that will take time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope that Andries can give us the exact text that he used for his citation. I just found this: "In 1974, when Stephen Kent was a 22-year-old hippie, he found himself in a packed house listening to a teen-aged guru that Rennie Davis hailed as the 'Perfect Master.' Davis, who had been one of the New Left's most prominent and gifted leaders, came dressed in a business suit, along with the guru's entire male entourage. Kent was flabbergasted by the enthusiastic reaction of his peers for this young guru, whose message Kent found 'banal' and whose delivery seemed 'amateurish'" What I am finding is that Kent made a few blunders in that book, including making the assertion that wearing business suits were part of the Divine Light Mission liturgies (!) and that the mission maintained that women should be subservient to men (!!!). The work is available online (payment required) here:. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's hope editors have enough integrity to recognise Kent is not a reliable source.Momento 03:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would not say so, Momento. First, I am not 100% certain of the above blunders as I do not have a copy of the book, and second, even if he made those blunders there is nothing we can do about it, besides listing them. Kent is a sociologist and his book seem to be a treatise of how the radical youth of the 70's became attracted to Eastern philosophies and the like. I would be more concerned about giving proper context to the comments he made about young Prem Rawat, than anything else. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Jossi, what do you mean by "Kent made a few blunders in that book, including making the assertion that wearing business suits were part of the Divine Light Mission liturgies"? Mael-Num 04:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a little snippet from Kent's website about Melton - "One of the issues that Krebs and I raised about Melton was that he and co-editor James R. Lewis apparently received money from the group, Church Universal and Triumphant, to conduct a study of it, but did not inform readers of the study about this financial arrangement until Melton mentioned it in his rebuttal to our initial article (Kent and Krebs, 1999: 23; Melton, 1999: 17). From our perspective, researchers getting money from a group to conduct a study on it have an obligation to inform readers of this kind of financial arrangement".Momento 03:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Kent does not like Melton much.... they are at opposing sides of the political spectrum as it pertains to the study of new religious movements. Let's focus on the article, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's wait to see if Andries can provide us with some text from the book. If he can't, a trip to the library! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of quotes in lead
I object to the use of one selective quote from 1971 in the lead. It would be more appropriate to leave such quotes to the article's body where context can be given for reader's benefit. When that was added? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have moved that new text to the appropriate chronology in the lead, as well as removed the quote. Please note that the "guru is greater than god" quote is still available in the 1970s section of the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Added by Andries in early Oct it but it used to be in the 70's section where it would belong but Francis moved it up. It is a quotes that needs context.Momento 05:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The quote is still in the 70s section. I only removed it from the lead. I would suggest we keep the lead for a later stage, when we have completed incorporating all the scholarly material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't been able to find any corroboration that Rawat described his wife as "an incarnation of Durga Ji". I have heard that he refered to her as Durga Ji, as an affectionate Indian name, much as his brothers have proper names and "title" type names.Momento 01:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a short bio of Prem Rawat at Thomson Gale that says that, so we are attributing the blunder to Thomson Gale. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We need to find a reliable source that says that upon his marriage, PR gave his wife the Hindi name "Durga Ji", and place alongside the attributed text from Thomson Gale, for reader's benefit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Thompson Gale quote about the Millenium festival is wrongly quoted. It doesn't say "the event" ran into trouble, but the "rapidly developing movement". I'm inclined to remove it entirely as it has no relevance to the Millenium festival.Momento 02:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have access to the full text of the Thomson Gale entry? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No. I just noticed the discrepancy. I am not happy with the "Durga Ji" quote. It is either a nick name or a mistake. In either case it shouldn't be in the article. Reincarnation has never been a part of Rawat's teaching as far as any other scholars report. I think editors have a responsibility to consider the big picture rather than play up an obvious mistake.Momento 08:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Having been involved with this article for some time and knowing a considerable amount about Rawat's teachings, I'm removing the Durga Ji quote because it is obviously incorrect.Momento 08:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your concern, Momento, but there are some policies that advise us against that. The issue is not what is true, but what is verifiable. Thomson Gale's obvious mistake, is verifiable as it is published by them. We could write to Thomson Gale and inform them of their mistake, but unfortunately we will need to keep the mistake it in the article, unless there is consensus from all involved editors that the information is incorrect and not worth including. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree Jossi but the alternative is to add even more matreial to the article to correct the mistake. I could add the whole of Hunt's article since it is verifiable and lots more beside but I don't think it would make a better article. But in the interests of a better article I'm invoking "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." If another editor wants to insert what two editors believe is a mistake, I'll argue with them. Until then common sense says "leave it out".Momento 19:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Found this in Andrea Cagan's book - "At the wedding, in keeping with Indian tradition, he gave his new wife a new name — Durga Ji, an Indian goddess seen as the embodiment of feminine and creative energy". Also found new info about 707 in Cagan's book and replaced uncited misinformation.Momento 02:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This sentence
"According to an article in the 1979 Sociological Review, immediately after his marriage, Maharaj Ji gained financial independence from his mother and family through the generosity of his devotees, and these contributions allowed him to follow the lifestyle of an American millionaire". Is a very poor paraphrase of the quote it cites. It suggests that the marriage preceeded financial independence and somehow caused it but Price didn't write that at all.Momento 12:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Structure re-visited
Why had the article been re-organized per POV instead of per era or per subject, in spite of Francis and my objections against such an organization? Andries 19:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There is not such re-organization, Andries. The current version follows the merge done a few days ago. We are still collecting and adding scholarly material. When that is done (or if there are any editors that want to start sooner) the plan is to move material to appropriate subject-related sections. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed Jossi. There seem to be three criticisms - divinity, lack of substance and wealth. All three are mentioned in the main body of the article. Divinity is already expanded on, given context and Rawat's reply stated. It seems complete to me. Lack of substance is mentioned but no reply. There is a great deal of material of Rawat saying that his teaching are about the experience of Knowledge not a theory which should be attached to the lack of substance criticism. Wealth is mentioned and expanded on but no reply. There is material of Rawat explaining his attitude to wealth and quite a bit in the Cagan book. I'll try to find something.Momento 02:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Do I need to do anything about Mael-Num's ridiculous sock puppet claim?Momento 02:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Melton's comment - "However, at the heart of Maharaji's teachings lies the simplest message that the human quest for fulfillment can be resolved by turning inward to discover a constant source of contentment and joy within. This message is supported by four techniques, together known as Konwledge, which provide the practical application that allow the practitioner the possibility of the experience spoken about by Maharaji" - is a great balance for the "lack of substance" claims. Momento 10:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that Melton wrote that. I think it is Geaves. Andries 19:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Could very well be. I will check next time I am at the library. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Vague intro?
If at all, it is too long. As per WP:LEAD, it needs to be summarized in "between one and four paragraphs long". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. There's plenty in the first sectiion that is adequately covered further down. It may take a little to get the contents and flow correct but I will try to look at it today.Momento 19:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the intro is vague. This has been repeatedly asserted by several uninvolved editors. I had fixed it but I was reverted. Andries 19:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not exactly, Andries. The intro was contested on the basis of being too verbose and Pjacobi made some suggestions that did not reached consensus. There was no agreement reached on how to re-write it, besides completing the article before attempting to do so. Here is the last discussion Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_21. We can, of course, resume the discussion to create a more solid intro for this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Frankly, and after re-reading the current lead, I can only see the need for shortening it. All material contained is properly sources as per WP:LEAD and otherwise it looks fine to me. If there are other concerns, it will be good if these are expressed so that it can be addressed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've reduced it to four paras, easier than I first thought. I can't see making it smaller but there may need to be some small adjustments.Momento 19:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But we have lost some good material regarding his pilot licenses and other (the last para on the previous entry). Consider restoring these under a new section labeled "Personal". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You also removed the criticism summary, that is needed as per WP:LEAD. Consider restoring it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Can't we put the pilot licences in the DECA section (I couldn't find much material in the previous version). And the only notable critism was "divinity" which I left in.Momento 20:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would add a new section named "Personal" and place the last para of the previous lead there. Regarding the criticism summary, I would restore it, as it will be otherwise seen as non-compliant with WP:LEAD and surely initiate an edit war. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The WP:LEAD says "notable controversies", the only minor contraversy was the "family split" and possibly "divinty" which I left in. As for a "criticism summary" the WP:LEAD only refers to "Criticism - include criticism if there has been significant, notable criticism" when discussing concepts or ideas. I cannot sdee anything in WP:LEAD that suggests a "criticism summary". In four paragraphs it would huugely outweight its significance.Momento 20:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Momento, You even removed the DLM from the lead. The only reason why Rawat was and is notable is because he was the leader of the DLM. I will give a revert, possibly partial. I am aware that you probably do not agree about the cause of his notability but we have discussed this extensively without coming any closer. I also disagree with you about removing other points of criticisms. Andries 20:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that Momento makes a good argument about "notable controversies" and I disagree that PR's notability is related to being the "leader of the DLM" as you assert. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I know you disagree, based on what I see as completely unconvincing arguments. I do not think that it makes sense to repeat this discussion. Andries 21:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. You can always chose not to discuss. That is your prerogative as an editor. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This is very interesting. An editor makes a comment that the intro does not conform with WP:LEAD. In response, Momento attempts to make the lead compliant as per the request. You, in turn, Andries, chose (a) not to discuss; (b) not to make an attempt to build upon Momento's attempt; and (c) revert without making an effort to fix the problem. In my view, that is a very improper way to ago about it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC
 * Omitting the one fact from the intro that makes Rawat notable i.e. his fomer leadership of the DLM deserves an immediate revert. It is like moving from the intro of Jimmy Carter that he was the president of the USA. Andries 22:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I added "...is a spiritual leader" as a stop-gap; I do not know who this person is and if I recall correctly, "spiritual leader" was contentious the last time. Notice: "Dan Rather is the former longtime anchor for the CBS Evening News...", "William Shakespeare was an English poet and playwright...". Encyclopedia articles do not begin "Prem Rawat was born on December 10...". Overall, introductions are not narrative summaries of a person's life from start to finish. —Centrx→talk &bull; 22:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried to help but Andries thinks that this article muust conform to his POV. Rawat may have been a "spiritual leader" in India 30 years ago but, according to Hunt, in the 80s he changed the style of his message and relinquished the the Hindu tradition, beliefs, and most of its original eastern religious practices. As Melton & Patridge write "Maharaji himself does not conform to any stereotype of a religious or spiritual leader". The only consistant thread running through Rawat's life from aged 4 to today is speaking and teaching about inner peace. I will replace "spiritual leader".Momento 22:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not like the removal of the term spritual leader though I admit that I do not have a source for it. May be you could add the tag for the term. Again, Melton did not write this. I suspect it is Geaves. Andries 22:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me get this right Andries, you don't like the removal of a recently added, non sourced description of Rawat that is directly contradicted in a scholarly article? What criteria should we use, your POV?Momento 22:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And I have removed the para about receiving Knowledge, his father and DLM because what is notable about Rawat is not becoming "leader" of an obscure Indian organisation but coming to the West as a 13 year old and talking about inner peace.Momento 22:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * He was notable because he came to the West as the leader of the DLM. Andries 23:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Momento, regarding the term spiritual leader, you are misreading the entry by the unknown writer (possibly Chryssides or Geaves) in the book edited by Partridge that states
 * "Maharaji himself does not conform to any stereotype of a religious or spiritual leader".
 * This is not a denial that he was religious or spiritual leader only that he is not a stereotypical one. Andries 23:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly Andries. And so we wouldn't want to describe him as a "spiritual leader" because he doesn't conform to any stereotype of one. And Rawat was "the leader of the DLM" for 5 years before he became notable in the West. Being "the leader of the DLM" doesn't make you notable, being a 13 year old drawing thousands of listeners is what make you notable.Momento 23:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not insist on retainging the term "spiritual leader". I only wrote that I did not like its removal. Andries 23:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I admit that there is some truth in it, though I do not think that this success can be separated from his leadership of the DLM. Andries 23:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Think about it. He lost control of the DLM India in 74 and DLM in the west was disbanded in the 80s but Rawat has continued to travel the world talking and teaching about inner-peace and still does so. Rawat's success is all Rawat's, and DLM was nothing without him and became nothing when he abandoned it.Momento 23:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Momento, you even removed the term Perfect Master from the summary. Another fact that made him notable. I will revert. I sincerely cannot understand your edits. Andries 23:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Perfect master" "Satguru", "Sant JI" " Balyogeshwar" "his father" "DLM" can all be discussed in the article. There is no room in the lead for it. Rawat is the famous one, not "Perfect Master". Change it back Andries I can't be bothered.Momento 23:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the title Perfect Master and the fact that he was the de jure leader of the DLM are important aspects of his notability. I will revert removals of these facts from the lead. Andries 00:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * His father was "Perfect Master" and "leader of the DLM" so how come Rawat is notable and his father isn't. There can only be one conclusion Andries, and that is that being "Perfect Master" and "leader of the DLM" doesn't make you notable, but being a 13 year old drawing thousands of listeners is what makes you notable. Being a "Perfect Master" and "DLM" are incidental and only known because of Rawat. There was no DLM or talk of a "Perfect Master" until Rawat. And when it comes to reducing this over long lead, Rawat is 100 times more important than a defunct organisation and an obsolete title.Momento 00:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanation. I will file a request for comments because I continue to disagree. Andries 09:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have redone the lead according to WP:LEAD. I have included "Perfect Master" and "Satguru", not because they make him notable but because the article needs to explain how he became a "speaker and teacher on the subject of inner peace". I need to reconnect the links to Perfect Master and satguru but haven't time now.Momento 03:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead is vaguer than ever. Andries 09:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead inaccurately stated that he talked about peace. As I had already stated some time ago, sources (Kranenborg 1982) say that peace was just one of the subjects that the he talked about. He also talked about surrender to the guru and other subjects. I will edit in. I have changed it into "he talked among other about peace otherwise the lead is one-sided bordering on misleading. Andries 10:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Andries, you write "addressing people among others". What does this mean?Momento 10:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The grammar may have been flawed, but I meant to say that he not only talk about peace but also about other subjects, as backed up by both primary sources (Rawat's speeches) and secondary sources (descriptions of his talks by scholars). Andries 10:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's right Andries, in forty years he's talked about dogs and cats, joy and love, in and out but what is the consistent topic for 40 years? The answer is "peace" Andries and you can't deny it.Momento 10:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I admit that Rawat has always talked about peace, but omitting from the lead the other subjects that he talked about is one-sided and misleading. Andries 10:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can give us another topic he has mentioned in every talk for the last 40 years?Momento 11:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And all the Dutch? Are we trying to help readers or baffle them.Momento 10:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is the reference for the four meditation techniques. I have already provided a translation of this. Andries
 * And Kranenborg? Isn't he the one who called Rawat's talk the "Peace Bomb"?Momento 10:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is one of the many things that Kranenborg wrote. Andries 10:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The edits you are making to the lead does not not address the concerns raised. Important information ha been removed from it, and in exchange, information that is better suited for the article's body where context can be given to readers is being added. The result of these edits is most unsatisfactory, to say the least:


 * The use of editorializing such as "though" to assert a counterpoint is unacceptable editorializing. The use of a specific source (Kraneborg's) to "support" the statement about the technique being four, is unnecessary: There is a full article about the subject and a full section in this article in which sources have been provided.


 * There is also duplication of material in the first two sentences.


 * The quote "guru is greater that God" is selective. The second part of that quote is missing. This is misleading, and it has been placed there a a way to poisoning the well for readers.


 * There is material unsupported by sources regarding leased aircrafts (that is not mentioned in the article either.


 * Important and sourced material was deleted from the article, regarding PR licenses as a pilot, american citizenship and other. A section named "Personal" sholud be added to contain that important material that weas lost

In summary, this lead is more of a mess than it was ever before, and I state my disappointment with the result. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You may be right that the word "though" regarding his claims of divinity in interviews is editorializing. I removed it. Andries 17:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding Kranenborg, I felt I had to add him to provide a reference for the statement that Techniques of Knowledge are four meditation techniques to avoid being vague. I do not understand why you think that Kranenborg is unnecessary. Andries 17:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Because there are already three or four other sources provided for that (Melton, Hunt, Chryssides and others). That is just a lame attempt to push once more your favorite Dutch scholar's. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Describing the Techniques of Knowledge in the lead as four meditation techniques was a necessary neutral, factual clarification. The complaint by several uninvolved users was vagueness which I fixed some extent with my edit.   Kranenborg was the easiest reference for me, because I know the reference quite well, but if you object to Kranenborg then I will replace it with somebody else who says more or less the same if I can find. Andries 19:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There is already a source for that. See Prem_Rawat ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hadden does not say that there are four meditation techniques. Kranenborg does (when his lengthy quote is summarized). Again, I have no problem to replace the reference to Kranenborg, but I think that the lead must mention that the techniques of knowledge are four meditation techniques for reasons already stated. Andries 19:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. Then use this: Prem_Rawat ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, the quote "Guru is greater than God" is selective, but we have to be because there is little place. If reader are interested they can check with a click in the references for the complete context, so I do not see a problem. What I added was an improvement to the one-sided information about denial of divinity in the interviews. Talk about selective. I suggest removing all the interview stuff from the leac. Andries 16:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? That was not one-sided. You just add that to poison the pill for reader by selectively quoting. You have done that in the past, and you continue doing so. . At least have the decency to admit it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, pointing only to denials of divinity when Rawat also said in an interview "guru is greater God" is one-sided. I correct this. Again, I have no problem to remove this quote from the lead as long as it is done together with the denials of divinity. I do not know why you want to e-mail me, but my answers to you will probably be a mere repetitions of the arguments that I have already made here. Andries 18:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I do agree with some of your other complaints, but I do not feel responsible, becaue it was Momemento who changed the other aspects of the lead. Andries 17:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are as responsible as Momento, with your constant editwarring. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You have mail, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion
I would suggest these fixes to the first two paragraphs: removing dup material, grammar fixes, wikilink to Techniques of K, and staying close to the source (initiation, rather than revealing):


 * Prem Pal Singh Rawat (born December 10, 1957), also called Maharaji, formerly called Guru Maharaj Ji, has been a speaker and teacher on the subject of inner peace for over 40 years, and says that he is able to offer a practical way to do so. He calls this method "Knowledge" that consists of four meditation techniques. Rawat describes it as a way to take "all your senses that have been going outside all your life, turn them around and put them inside to feel and to actually experience you".


 * At the age of six, he was initiated in the techniques of "Knowledge" by his father and succeeded him when he died in 1966, being accepted by his father's followers as their satguru (Sanskrit: true teacher) or "Perfect Master" at his father's funeral. He thereby became the recognized leader of the Divine Light Mission (DLM) that was started by his father and began taking his message to people throughout the Indian subcontinent.

The last to paras still need work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The first paras are good enough. Here are the last tw -

In 1971 he was invited to speak in London and Los Angeles and attracted substantial media attention. Some of the media referred to the 13-year-old as the "boy guru" and some reported claims of divinity which Rawat always denied.[8][9][10][11][12] In 1972 he began touring the world talking about inner peace and teaching Knowledge.[13] His marriage to a Westerner in 1974 precipitated a family rift and Rawat's mother and his eldest brother Satya Pal Singh (Satpal) returned to India.[14][15] Rawat remained in the West and in the 1980s he changed the style of his message and relinquished the Hindu tradition, beliefs, and most of its original eastern religious practices.[16]Rawat continued to tour extensively in the 1980s and 1990s, most often at the controls of a series of executive jets leased for his use. According to The Prem Rawat Foundation which he established in 2001, Rawat promotes a means to achieve a lifelong, individual experience of inner peace,[17] and that he believes that "it is only by individuals finding peace for themselves can the world be at peace". Starting in 2001, he has been invited to address various institutions on the subject of peace,[18] and has, through the Prem Rawat Foundation, spearheaded various humanitarian initiatives.

I would like to bring readers up to date by including the number of people and events Rawat spoke to in 2006. Do you know where to find it.Momento 21:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have made the edit proposed for first to paras. If not agreeable to involved editors, please revert. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Coming back to this article after a week, I think that there has been some strong effort made to improving the readability and content. Kudos to all.

Here are a few suggestions I would like to make. In composing a lead, it is appropriate to include information that will appear later in the article, where it will be discussed in greater depth. To this end, it would be fine to have the lead be a little redundant with respect to the rest of the article, because the common thinking and the very reason why we have leads is that people aren't going to read the whole article (sad, but true). So, assuming a reader has a short attention span and will only read a few paragraphs, you want to summarize the rest of the article as faithfully and succinctly as possible. As the lead is now, it appears to have been chopped up, revised, re-revised, added on to, and revised once more. It has a lot of random facts, but no real "flow". I would suggest someone just start from scratch. Set up a sandbox and write a new version, and try to include a sampling from every section of the article (including the reception section, which is noticably lacking). I would do this myself, but I feel I am a pretty crummy writer.

Another suggestion to consider in rewriting (or future revision) is to fix sentences that read like this:
 * "Some of the media referred to the 13-year-old as the "boy guru" and some reported claims of divinity which Rawat always denied.   "

Yes, that's right. A single sentence with five references. That's averaging about 4 words per cite. It must be some sort of world's record. I can't even tell what some of these references are, being that they are talk shows or something. The ones I can follow (Time magazine, for example) have nothing to do with a claim of divinity or Rawat's denial. Why is it there? I don't know, but its placement is an error. I am not totally familiar with Wiki's style policies, but I think it's best to avoid having a pile-up of references at the end of a sentence. I'd recommend going with one (or two) of the most reliable sources, and attempting to place sources where they are most pertinent. For example, the Time article mentioned is more relevant to the previous sentence "In 1971 he was invited to speak in London and Los Angeles and attracted substantial media attention." The cite should be placed there. References of an inferior quality (for example, a television show from 1973 that is difficult or impossible to independently locate and confirm) should be omitted if there are other, better (more researchable/reliable) references to the same idea.

I'll try to tidy up in a bit, and I'll even take a crack at a possible rewrite. Most importantly, I'd like to hear some feedback on these ideas. Am I making sense on these points? Mael-Num 23:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, some tiding up will be needed after the last re-shuffle. I would suggest to wait and see if the current version (word wise) is acceptable to other editors, and then proceed with the cleanup of refs (which I agree that 5 references for one sentence is exaggerated). I would do this with caution, though, so as to not to lose any of the refs that editors have made efforts to research and find. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I did a re-write ( 19:52, 27 January 2007 Momento) but it was immediately reverted by Andries, who continued to revert and then started inserting additional material. As for "divinity" claims Rawat made fun of people who thought a human could be God in his first talks in the west (see Wiki quotes) but anti PR editors like to trot it out.Momento 23:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * AAAH! Enough with the "divinity" stuff!  Talk about it elsewhere, but don't have it creep into every freakin' discussion on this page!  We're talking about how to make the lead better.  Debates as to divinity would belong elsewhere in the article anyway. Mael-Num 23:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But Mael-Num, it was you who brought it up. Look, up above, in your previous post.Momento 23:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't. The word "divinity" was in a quote, but it has 100% of nothing to do with the validity of any such claims or any related debate.  That, sir, is a straw man argument.  Again, take it elsewhere. Mael-Num 23:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

M-N you spent 14 lines discussing the "divinty" sentence. I was pointing out why it existed and why it has so many poor cites. And giving you a little history gratis.Momento 23:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would recommend you stop counting lines and start reading them for content. It would have made no difference if the sentence was about Rawat's divinity or his favorite ice cream, the point was about citation.  You, in turn, used that one word as an opportunity to give your position on the subject.  This discussion is, again, getting off topic.  Contribute constructively, please. Mael-Num 00:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Mael, could please keep the tone down and a bit less strong, please? It would make the discussions more useful and less stressful. Thanks for your cooperation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
 * Okay, sure. Momento, please don't contentiously use straw man arguments to launch into a debate regarding Rawat's "divine status".  That wasn't the purpose behind or the meaning of my quote, above, and it may completely derail what could otherwise be a meaningful discussion. Mael-Num 23:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) Another suggestion for streamlining the lead: no quotes. They just don't belong there. Summarize what is being said, and do it briefly. If you think a quote belongs in the article, put it after the lead. Mael-Num 23:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Since this article is about Prem Rawat, I think a quote from him is most apppropriate.Momento 23:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Just not in the lead.  Mael-Num 00:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It is untrue that Rawat has always denied claims of divinity. He affirmed in one interview to be the Lord of the Universe. And saying that "guru is greater than God" may not be a literal claim of divinity, but it shows clearly why the status of his claim was and is quite ambiguous, even when the quote is read in full context. Andries 00:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Both Reinhart Hummel, Jan van der Lans, J. Gordon Melton, and Reender Kranenborg asserted that Rawat made claims of divinity and there is no scholar that I know of that denies that Rawat made claims of divinity. Andries 00:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. We have the sources for that, and these are presented as needed. But what is discussed is the fact that he explicitly denied these claims in the interviews he gave to the media. We have been through this so many times that it is getting boring, really. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if Rawat said things to the effect that "I am god-like" or "I am an instrument of God's will", but didn't actually claim to be God, there is a subtle difference there. The oft-quoted "Guru > God" thing implies a distinction there, as I see it, because he's not saying "Guru = God".  All the same, if he has made claims of special divine insight or knowledge or powers or whatever, and later retracted these, then there's also a subtle difference in this.  It's not that he never claimed these attributes, it is the case that he claimed them, and later recanted.  It's important to give the whole story. Mael-Num 02:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As I see it, Jossi is saying that Rawat never claimed to be divine, and Andries is saying that Rawat, in the past, implied divine attributes. The questions at hand are:
 * 1) Which is it?
 * 2) Is there proof?
 * Mael-Num 02:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not say that, Mael. I said that PR denied these claims in the interviews he gave to the media in the 70s. The problem, Mael is that the concept of "God" is very different in Judeo-Christian tradition, as in the Eastern tradition such as in Hiduism. I would prefer not to get involved in this type of discussions in these talk pages. If you want you can email me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to explain in further detail what you mean, please, feel free to describe these differences at length in my talk page. I'd like to know more so that I can have a better understanding and perspective on this issue. Mael-Num 03:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And, not to be contentious, but if PR was denying claims of divinity back in the 70's, isn't that the same thing as his never claiming to be divine? Or do you mean that he was retracting claims that he was previously making?  I just want to know so that I understand the whole story. Mael-Num 03:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your interest, but Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. If you want to know PR's story, you are welcome to read a new biography that was just published last week: . ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's inappropriate for you to talk to me about your take on events on my talk page. That's certainly what it's there for, and if you've got the time and the inclination, I'd really like it if you did just that.  But in any case, all I'm asking is for you to clarify what you mean.  Did Rawat
 * A) always deny claims of divinity made by others, going back as far as the 70's?
 * B) in the 70's deny claims of divinity that he previously had made himself at an earlier time?
 * The wording you used before was ambiguous, and I wanted to understand the "whole story" of what you were saying. Mael-Num 10:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You may want to explore some good material available in WP, such as Guru (in particular the section about Guru, as well as Guru-shishya_tradition. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So, what you're saying is that you don't want to clarify your own words? Mael-Num 23:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What I am saying, Mael, is that I want to keep talk-page discipline and avoid making this page a discussion forum to discuss our opinions on the subject. As I said before, if you want to learn more about PR, you can explore some of the resources available. See for example a chronological listing of quotes by PR at Wikiquote (in which you can appreciate the evolution of PR's way of presenting his message), and the full text of a recent address at Wikisource. Get started there, and if you have any further questions you can email me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Talk page discipline" has nothing to do with it. I'm not starting a discussion group.  I am asking you specifically what your words meant.  As I have stated a few times now, the wording is ambiguous.  Please clarify your words. Mael-Num 23:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if you desist. If there is anything that you need clarified related to this article, ask me and I will oblige. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent)I'm asking for you to clarify what you mean. Did Rawat
 * A) always deny claims of divinity (made by others, related to Rawat), going back as far as the 70's?
 * B) in the 70's deny claims of divinity that he previously had made about himself?

The wording you used before was ambiguous, and I wanted to understand the "whole story" of what you were saying. Mael-Num 23:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think, M-N, you'd be better advised to base your editing on reliable facts rather than others editors opinions. You ought to buy the new biography on Rawat by Andrea Cagan. It will answer many of your questions.Momento 03:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course I base my edits on reliable facts. Does that mean I shouldn't ask for clarification? Mael-Num 03:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the point, Jossi might be wrong. You investigate then you decide.Momento 04:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. Jossi might be mistaken.  But I can't tell what he means~  That's the point. =)Mael-Num 04:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the denial of divinity from the lead, because either the whole story or no story should be told. Telling the whole story could make the lead long. Quotes that could be included are among others
 * "Guru is greater than God"
 * Question: "Guru Maharaj Ji, what does it feel like to be Lord of the universe?
 * Maharaji: "When you become Lord of the Universe, you become a puppet, really! [..]"
 * Andries 09:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, given Jossi's inability (or unwillingness) to clarify his words, and the discussion of the subject going on here, I think the case is that Rawat earlier in his career made numerous claims to divinity, both implied and overt, and as time went on he denied these claims and redefined his image. As that is certainly one possible interpretation of Jossi's words, I must conclude that he concurs with this assessment. I don't think, under these circumstances, that it would be inappropriate to include reliable statements to this effect, as the consensus agrees this is accurate. Mael-Num 23:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that you are overstepping here, Mael. Please refrain from interpreting "my words", as this is neither needed, nor useful. I remind you yet again that this is not a discussion forum about the subject of this article and that in Wikipedia ,editor's consensus of opinion cannot trump Wikipedia content policies. Find a reputable source that asserts what you say and it can added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're not assuming good faith here, Jossi. It's not only useful, but mandatory that every person interprets another's words, otherwise they obviously have no meaning.  Are you implying that I am deliberately distorting your words?  No, of course you couldn't possibly be, because you must assume good faith, and I have given you more than ample opportunity to clarify.  As you have responded here, and still have not rebutted my conclusions, I must further conclude your implicit agreement with my words.  Also, I appreciate your vigilant reminders as to random and unrelated wikipedia guidelines and policies.  We're sure to never devolve into a discussion group with one such as you around!  Kudos. Mael-Num 01:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would ask you, yet again, for the nth time, to please focus on discussing this article. I absolutely do not agree with your words, and I do not care to discuss the subject of this article, but only the article itself and ways to improve it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please show, for the 1st time, where I am not discussing the article. Thanks.  Mael-Num 01:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there is a confusion over claiming to be God and claiming to be divine. He has never claimed to be God but has always claimed that he and every human being is divine.Momento 00:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There's absolutely no confusion, at least on my part. Rawat has not said, for example "When people are gathered together, God is there."  He has said that "when Guru [Rawat] is here, God is here", and that he is "the highest manifestation of God", and that he is the singular "perfect master".  He makes a clear distinction between the sort of divinity that he believes is present in himself ("the highest") and the sort of "imperfect" divinity that is present in others.  He further associates his own sort of divinity with God as being "All-Powerful" and "greater than God".  He doesn't describe others in this way.  So, no Momento, there's no confusion or ambiguity about these statements.  He claims to be at least on par with God, if not better than him.  Pretty definite talk, that. Mael-Num 01:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have already suggested to you to read the quotes at Wikiquote in which PR speaks of God through the different years. And I ask you again, to refrain from using this page to discuss the subject of the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Despite your claims that this is happening, I think the only non-article based discussion is happening on my talk page. And perhaps in your imagination. =) Mael-Num 01:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I will not engage in discussions about the subject of this article, not with you and not with anyone else, and no matter what subterfuges you will use to draw me into discussions in this page, you will not succeed. If others want to engage in discussions in your talk page, have fun. But not here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Subterfuge, eh? That sounds like you are accusing me of something quite unpleasant.  In case you are not familiar with this, please read WP:NPA. Mael-Num 01:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No Mael, no. You keep misinterpreting me. I was speaking of an argumentative subterfuge called doublespeak argument, such as saying that because I did not answer you, I then agree with your position. These fallacies, such as begging the question, Ignoratio elenchi and similar, are "subterfuges" used in debates. As this page is not a page for such debates, I ask you to refrain from attempting to engage me on these, as they will be ignored. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that you've now outright falsely accused me of "argumentative subterfuge", I don't think my words were a misrepresentation in the least. Also, as one can plainly see, none of these rhetorical fallacies that you are accusing me of fit the style of reasoning given in my assesment in the least.  Given these facts, I'd urge you to consult both a mirror and the article on the strawman argument.  In any case, I have as little interest in trading barbs with you as I do in further continuing this argument.  As you've already said, if a reliable source on the subject can be found, it should be added, and that's good enough. Mael-Num 06:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just in case you are not familiar with this, please read Talk_page_guidelines. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2007 (

Lead Rewrite
Per the discussion here, I've attempted a somewhat major revision of the lead. I've tried to crystallize a lot of the rambling details, and added a couple where they were lacking. Hopefully this version will find favor as an easier read that gives a brief and broad, though not very deep, treatment of Rawat. Mael-Num 08:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I stopped counting the mistakes you inserted after 4. Let alone the bad writing.Reverted.Momento 09:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...well, I'd recommend you start counting and discussing them here. And please, don't attack my writing.  It's poor form, and I'm a sensitive person. Mael-Num 09:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If I can show you 4 factual errors, will you admit that you don't have the editing skills to improve on this article and leave it alone?Momento 09:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an odd request. Why don't you work to improve the article, and let that be a reward in itself? Mael-Num 09:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If improving the article is a reward, what pleasure do you get in inserting 4 factual errors in one edit.Momento 09:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for you to point these errors out. Mael-Num 09:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

And let me add to the list, reverting but claiming in history that it is a minor ediit.Momento 09:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * C'mon. Can't you point out just one of these errors?  Maybe give me a hint? Mael-Num 09:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Your insertion of obvious errors and your refusal to check and correct your own edits went pointed out shows the contempt you have for this article. Coupled with your unfounded allegations that I am a sock puppet indicates that you presence here is solely to push your POV and try to intimidate other editors. It is 30 minutes since I informed you of your bad edits but you have not corrected them but continue to revert to include them. GoodbyeMomento 09:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But...I checked and double checked. Could you please be specific, and also please stop making personal attacks? Mael-Num 09:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

hey momento isn't making personal attacks, he is just stating the obvious Aaabbbcccdddeee 08:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Lifestyle and following
This is a crucial point, and must be formulated in a less editorializing way, as to not parenthetically confirm the critical statement. Following Prem Rawat was never a matter of lifestyle, as a matter of fact this was and is a highly discriminative characteristic of his teachings.--Rainer P. 09:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean exactly. Could you elaborate, please?  Mael-Num 10:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, if we could agree that the burden of elaborating should match the burden of understanding on your part. Where is the ambiguity?--Rainer P. 10:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. For starters, what is "this"?  Mael-Num 10:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"This" refers to the concurrent change I made in the article, see: History.--Rainer P. 10:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, let me try and connect the dots. I'm not trying to be difficult here, I just don't know what the heck you're talking about because you're using pronouns exclusively.


 * I see that you removed the part that stated, in essence, that critics faulted Rawat for not living a "simple life" while he advocated such a practice for his followers. You ammended it to be a criticism for just not living a simple life.  I think it's a good change, but I'm not sure what else you're talking about.  Nothing was parenthetically stated (because I didn't use parenthesis there).  As far as lifestyle changes that were recommended to followers, this was the case.  Other references in the article state that followers were to swear off tobacco, alcohol, cut their hair short, etc.  Rawat's Ashram Manual requires that members of the renunciate order (the guys who live in the Ashrams) take "take written vows of poverty, chastity and obedience."  So, the fact is that the practice of living a simple life was dictated by Rawat's organizations.


 * As I said though, it's probably a good change because the "recommendation" of lifestyle was not made obviously clear in my single citation for that claim. I am deliberately trying to use citations sparingly in the lead, because a lot of it is information that is summarized and cited elsewhere in the article, and the lead seemed to have been overloaded with sentences that looked like this.      So, it's really a question of preference, I think.  The fact is that Rawat endorsed a humble lifestyle, and lived rather opulently.  The fact is also that my citation didn't specify that.  The reader can confirm this claim of "recommended lifestyle change" by reading further, but the reader can also find out about this claim by reading on.  So, in other words, I'm okay with your change if you're okay with it. =) Mael-Num 10:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But, also, I'm not sure if you're saying that we need to change more. Also note, I'm pretty tired, so it's pretty easy for me to not "get" what you're saying right now. Mael-Num 10:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The recent changes and additions are not useful, are factually inaccurate, and are in violation of WP:NPOV. I have reverted those changes to the last factually accurate version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * *"Spiritual awareness". Editor's opinion, unsourced statement and original research
 * *"Introspective techniques". Editor's opinion, unsourced statement and original research
 * *"He also established the US chapter of Elan Vital". Factually inaccurate, unsourced assertion
 * *Undue weight. See WP:NPOV
 * I consider these edits, which I have reverted, to be neither useful, nor improving the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to address these points:


 * *"Spiritual awareness". Editor's opinion, unsourced statement and original research
 * Wrong. This is not original research.  That's a red herring argument.  It's a summarization of what Rawat advocates.  See my next point for further explanation.
 * I changed "spiritual awareness" to "spirituality", mostly because it was easier to wikify. The article linked to fits very nicely with what Rawat teaches.  I think you'll agree it's a good thing. Mael-Num 22:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * *"Introspective techniques". Editor's opinion, unsourced statement and original research
 * Wrong again. First off, there was a quote cited:"Knowledge is a way to be able to take all your senses that have been going outside all your life, turn them around and put them inside to feel and to actually experience you... What you are looking for is inside of you."  This is the very definition of introspection.  I'm calling it what it is, per Rawat's own description.  To claim that calling Rawat's work "spiritual awareness" and "introspective techniques" is original research is akin to claiming that calling Rawat a speaker and teacher is original research.  It's patently obvious.  This is another red herring.
 * *"He also established the US chapter of Elan Vital". Factually inaccurate, unsourced assertion
 * Very well, I will add a citation. I think it's important to put the foundation of Elan Vital into the timeline.  Per WP:LS "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article."  Elan Vital is clearly an important part of Rawat's life, and should be included.
 * *Undue weight. See WP:NPOV 
 * Vaguery. What does this even mean?  Undue weight to what?  It's a summary of "the most important points covered in an article".  Where was this not done?  Please be specific.

Given the fact that myself and another editor have reviewed this information and found it to be acceptable, and two editors have thus far found it unacceptable, clearly there is no consensus for this reversion. Futhermore, as Jossi and Momento must surely understand from the discussions on this talk page, I made these bold changes per the ongoing discussion of needed improvements. If they feel the revision could use further improvement, I encourage them to work within the framework of the existing (and demonstrably valid) edits, and not simply undo another editor's hard work because they disagree with a tiny portion of it. Mael-Num 21:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So, it is only your hard work that counts? What about the hard work of others? The current version that you have revereted twice, without consensus, is factually innacurate, has elements of original research and undue weight to, as per the source provided, a "number of former members". You have chosen to replace the edit by Francis Schonen summarizing the criticism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a false dilemma. I also hasten to add that the reverts done to my work had no consensus (in fact, given that only Momento and yourself seem to dislike them, the consensus appears to be that my edit isn't that bad).  The edit by User:Francis Schonken was not removed by me, but rather by User:Momento, see diff].  I wonder...will you criticize Momento for removing Schonken's work as harshly as you are now accusing me for something I didn't even do? Mael-Num 23:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your keep speaking of consensus for your edits, that you have introduced yesterday. The proof of consensus is when there is stability. No such stability for the lead been achieved. The current lead is a step backward from previous versions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How so? You and Momento seem to think so, but PatW, RainerP and myself have been over the article and haven't seen the need to revert.  I would like to understand your reasoning.  Could you please explain? Mael-Num 00:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So, because your edits as per my comments are problematic. If there was a consensus, why did you call an RfC? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? That first part's not even a sentence.  I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Mael-Num 00:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And let's not forget getting Rawat's father's name wrong twice and saying Rawat was spreading his father's message after he died, erroneous original research....Momento 19:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I copy-pasted the man's name from his own wikipedia article! I used his birth name so as to reduce any confusion as to who's who.  And the citations given describe Prem Rawat as picking up where his father left off.  That's not my opinion, but theirs. Mael-Num 21:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also note that these edits are losing important and sourced material. I have restored the summary of crticism added by Francis Schonnen diff. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed controversy sentence. There was no controversy about "intellectual content" just passing references in scholalry articles. No controversy about "lifestyle', some criticised it but no controversy. Not enough importance to warrant inclusion in the lead.Momento 19:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

''Moved personal experiences comments to User_talk:Rainer P. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I admit my response also contains some personal experience...I maintain that is not entirely innappropriate... but otherwise it is largely an attempt to reason why the ashram lifestyle WAS clearly a part of Rawat's teachings. My intention was to establish some consensus about this so that the article might reflect this understanding. Also Rainers logic is infuriatingly biased, missing the point about hypocrisy, and it completely begs the kind of response I've made this time. For example his argument about the non-hypocrisy of a gas-station owner not having to be a non-smoker is a highly simplistic comparison for a number of reasons. The fact is that Rawat as 'Satguru' was perceived and portrayed in premie documentation as being 'Divine' and beyond these desires and yet, apparently was not, and yet he told other people to give up all that stuff. But that's just a smokescreen from the real point which is that Rainer totally omits the fact that, as I've clarified, Rawat is documented as advocating the ashram lifestyle as being a a wonderful opportunity, his gift, of being able to surrender one's life to Guru Maharaji in this lifetime. So that is why living in an ashram was absolutely a very important part of his teaching. Tell me Jossi, do you think the Ashram way of life was a part of teachings? Hope you're well too. I'm fine..very busy but fine. PatW 18:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What I believe or not is of no consequence to this article, Pat. We need to stay focus and report what reliable sources say about the subject. That's all. Expressing our opinions is better done off-Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Reminder
I would like to remind editors:
 * 1) This page is not provided to discuss our personal experiences, positive or negative;
 * 2) This page is  not provided to discuss the subject, but to discuss ways to improve the article. As per Talk page guidelines: "Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views."
 * 3) Off-topic material as per above, will be refactored and moved to the user namespace. See Refactoring talk pages;
 * 4) If editors want to discuss the subject, please use other more appropriate off-wiki fora;
 * 5) Editors interested in improving the article should endeavor to summarize the abundant new sources provided at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars;
 * 6) There is a newly published biography by Andrea Cagan that has not been explored yet and that can be used to corroborate existing material, add new material, etc.

Many editors are referring the policy of assume good faith. Such good faith can only be assumed if editors prove through their edits that they have an interest in improving this encyclopedia, rather than asserting their personal viewpoints.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Original Research
Per WP:NOR, I am removing claims which should be excluded.


 * From Jan van der Lans:"Van der Lans did not provide citations for his very critical assessment."
 * Reason:"It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position". There is no indication that van der Lans's work is uncited; the only citation given does not indicate this information.  It's fairly incredible that a research piece could be published and include no research, which is what is being claimed.  More definite proof is needed.


 * From Saul V. Levine:His analysis was based on practices, such as the monastic life in ashrams, that were abandoned in the 1980s when Prem Rawat threw off anachronistic Hindu religious and cultural trappings previously associated with his message.
 * Reason:"It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source". The cited material gives no indication that the conclusions were based on abandoned practices.  Indeed, the publication date (1989) indicates that the authors would have been very aware of ongoing practices in the 1980's, as the work was released in the last year of that decade.  The author is claiming, presumably on personal speculation, that the author is speaking of practices that were no longer in place.  This is uncited research on the part of the editor, and requires credible citation from a reliable source that Levine's analysis was flawed or outdated.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mael-Num (talk • contribs)

I have no problem with removing the text from Van der lans. But I have a problem with the removal of context for Levine's. You are very quick to spot OR on material, while introducing OR yourself as you have done in the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have done no such thing, please stop accusing me of things I have not done. Regardless of any alleged wrong doing on my part, this "context" for Levine is original research.  If it is not, then please help improve the article by citing reliable sources so that readers can determine the correct context of the criticism. Mael-Num 00:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

RFC
I am opening an RFC for this article because there is a clear deadlock as far as what is appropriate for a lead section, what is original research, and what is fair weight in criticism. I hope that by bringing in additional eyes and hands, we can move forward constructively rather than squabbling and edit warring. Mael-Num 21:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, only that the version that you reverted to for the second time, is factually inaccurate, contains original research, loses important sources, and gives undue weight to a minority viewpoint, as per the comments below. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Mael-Num removed long standing summary of criticism, that was inserted by User:Francis Schonken (see diff. This includes the deletion of important sources and translations of sources provided by editors. You replaced it with a minority viewpoint based on one source relates to "some former members", and the viewpoint of one psychiatrist.
 * 2) Mael-Num introduced "Spirituality" that is your opinion,an unsourced statement and original research
 * 3) Mael-Num introduced "Introspective techniques", that is an unpublished synthesis, an unsourced statement and original research
 * 4) Mael-Num introduced "He also established the US chapter of Elan Vital", which is a factually inaccurate, unsourced assertion
 * 5) Mael-Num deleted in his edit valuable sources that have been researched with a lot of effort by editors of this article.


 * In response to Andries comments, some of the things he says are disputed, are not. Points 4 and 5, for example I do  not think that anyone disagrees with him. As for the lead's content, as per WP:LEAD we should describe any "significant controversies", and not minority viewpoints. The claims of divinity reported on the press and the denials made to the press could be included. The family rift, was also widely reported controversy and already included in the lead. That's all that needs to be summarized in the lead, besides the chronology up to today as currently summarized. The opinion of one scholar (in this case Schnabel) is not a significant viewpoint to be included in the lead, for example. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Mael-Num 00:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Jossi's claim that I had removed User:Francis Schonken's work is incorrect. User:Momento removed this information at a much earlier date see diff.  As one can plainly see by this diff, the version I edited had none of Francis Schonken's work.  Furthermore, in my effort to improve the article, I have attempted to incorporate Francis Schonken's words into the lead, as shown inthis diff.
 * 2) Jossi's other criticisms have been addressed here. I will also add that while Jossi claims that words like "spirituality" and "introspective" are original research, he does not state why this is the case.  He also does not explain how inserting the foundation of Elan Vital US into its chronological place in the narrative is incorrect, despite the information being cited.  If some of the information should be corrected, or clarified, I think it would be best to do so, rather than dismissing and reverting the entire edit out of hand.
 * 3) Jossi and I clearly have a difference of opinion as to what should be done, and thus my request to have others help us with their insights.

My only comment is to invite readers to look at both versions side by side and see which is easier to read, contains less errors and faithfully represents the main contents of the article. Essentially Mael-Num's rewrite is an opportunity for M-N to give undue weight to criticism and to include the comments of some ex-members of "brainwashing and mind control" without attributing these comments to them.Momento 03:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL prolly l2read and than u can understand what a cite is and that he gives cites


 * 1. Momento supports including a statement in the lead that Rawat denied claims of divinity which I think is one sided. I think that these denials should not be included unless accompanied by other quotes (for which there is little space). Examples where Rawat did not clearly deny to be divine when asked about it or addresses as divine include the following quotes
 * 1.1 Published by Divine Light Mission - PMT (Perfect Master Tapes) No. 171 Guru Maharaji speaking in Miami, Fla, Jan. 16th, 1981.Question on devotion and other answers. "Light Reading" Vol.1 No.1 Spring 1978
 * Q:Guru Maharaj Ji, are you permanently in God-consciousness?
 * A:Yes. I am permanently in God-consciousness.
 * Q:Some people say you are a divine incarnation, and some people say other things about you. What's the truth?
 * A:You yourself must realize the truth.
 * 1.2 And further from (from a question and answer session given by Guru Maharaj Ji in Portland, Oregon, June 29, 1972
 * Question: Guru Maharaj Ji, what does it feel like to be Lord of the universe?
 * [..]
 * Maharaji: You don't know.... Do you? When you become Lord of the Universe, you become a puppet, really! Nothing else; not 'you'. Not 'I', not 'you' no egos, no pride, nothing else. One with humbleness; servant. Very, very beautiful. Always in divine bliss. Creating your own environment - wherever you go, doesn't matter. Like my friends used to play and I used to sit right in the corner of my ground and meditate (laughter).
 * She wants to change places with me! I wish I could change places with everyone, and give one hour of experience to everyone! But it's not possible"
 * 1.3 From Grenley, Peter Friday, 3 September 1971 News Journal, Mansfield, Ohio. "I Was A Teen-Age Guru ...Story Of Maharaji Of India"
 * "When he is specifically asked whether or not he considers himself a human, however, he pauses, as though figuring out the answer. "Yes, I am a human," he says,. finally. "Hands bone, lungs. But guru is greater than God because if you go to guru, guru will show you God."
 * 2.Mael-Num makes edits give undue weight to some criticism, i.e. brainwashing and mind control which is not prominent and not consistent over the years. I believe that criticism should be included in the lead, but this should be the most prominent criticism, e.g. lack of intellectual contents, and sumptuous life style.
 * 3.Mael-Num is a newcomer and does not know much about the subject yet and hence his or her edits contain personal interpretations that do not stay close to the sources. Mael-Num edits should reflect modesty because of his or her lack of knowledge and s/he should not revert edits without discussion and without reading the talk pages incl. the archives.
 * 4.One of the main reasons why Rawat was notable was because he was the leader of the Divine Light Mission and hence this should be retained in the lead. Jossi denies that this makes him notable, but I think his arguments are completely unconvincing and he more or less contradicts himself when he writes elsewhere that information about Rawat can be found in religious dictionaries under the entry Divine Light Mission
 * 5. I also think that the title or status of Perfect Master should be retained in the lead, because that was the most prominent status or title of Rawat.
 * Andries 10:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC) amended 11:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Momento 20:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't understand anyone claiming Rawat said he was God. From the very start he has stated over and over again that God is energy and cannot be a human being. Here are four quotes from his first talks in the west where Rawat says it is impossible for a human being to be God. Once you axccept these quotes are real, how can you possibly think Rawat thought he was God!
 * PR talking in Toronto, Canada; September, 1971 "What is God? You don't know what God is. God cannot be a human being. God is Light; God is power. God cannot talk".
 * PR Peace Bomb Satsang 1971 -"So dear premies, receive this Knowledge and know God within yourself. That pure energy, God is within your own heart".
 * PR talking Westminster 1971 - "The world thinks, people think, that God is man. People think that God has got ears, nose, teeth, and he rises daily in the morning, brushes his teeth and washes his mouth. And they think he is an old man and has a beard. All these things people think. But no, God is energy. God is perfect and pure energy".
 * PR talking in Colorado 1971 - "Some people think that God is a human being but he is not. God hasn't got ears like us, nose like us, teeth, tongue, lungs, chest, bones. He isn't like that".

As for being divine, Rawat believes everyone is divine because God is within every human being
 * PR Peace Bomb Satsang 1971 - know God within yourself & God is within your own heart".
 * PR talking Westminster 1971 – God is inside
 * PR talking in Fulham 1972 – You have to dig inside to find God.

As for Rawat being notable because of DLM. Rawat was in all the papers in the UK and the US long before DLM was even registered. Rawat makes DLM notable, not the other way around.Momento 20:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * — I'd like to refer interested parties to the following user-page discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mael-Num#Prem_Rawat where user Mael-Num makes a very strong case for a contrary argument. (I'd copy and paste it here, but do not wish to bloat this page more than it already is).


 * Momento, you have selected some quotes that support your opinion. But in doing so you make transparent your bias.  It's blatantly clear that, by omitting quotes that demonstrate that Rawat made claims to divinity which are relevant and notable, a very bright spotlight is shone on the supposed "neutrality" of your position as editor, and your subsequent influence on the article.


 * "Who is Guru? The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here, to whom will you give your devotion?"


 * "God made the mind but He never made a stoplight. And when He saw that 'There is no stop in this mind which I have made,' He was very sorry. He had to take a form. The form of Guru is nobody but Himself, the whole that you want to see. The whole power is now in the form of a body. That is the body which is the 'Supremest' of all, and its duties, works are not like those of humanity."


 * "To be here as individuals, and yet to be able to be next to the person who is everything; in which everything is, and he is in everything. Guru Maharaji. The Lord. All powerful."


 * I'd love to see you try and explain how the meaning of the words "The Lord all powerful" and "God" are so very different!
 * Revera 14:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to improve this article
This article on Prem Rawat has effectively become an example of aggressive, self-promotion on behalf of Prem Rawat, carried out by his followers with some considerable success to them. Rawat's supporters have clearly used Wikipedia to bolster his credibility by dominating and influencing this article about him in his favour over a long period of time. It is an utter waste of most other people's time trying to edit it because it is totally dominated by a core group of his ardent followers determined to eradicate all criticism they deem too unsavoury. I and many others have repeatedly tried to edit, to include more critical and indeed, what we feel is fairer and more complete content, but our contributions and reasonings have been repeatedly over-ruled and deleted over a period of years. Personally I have no more time to waste on this fruitless exercise. I feel my only recourse now is to complain and retrire from the fray.

It appears that the most persistent editors are, or were employed by Rawat's organisation and all are motivated to toe the party line and maintain this article according to the image Prem Rawat wants to promote. They have removed all trace of 'unsavoury' critical content to leave whitewash and incomplete references about his past teachings etc. What are predictably judged by them as 'inadequately referenced' facts are disputed so vigorously and unrelentingly that other editors simply tire and eventually give up. It is only the followers so-called 'consensus' that remains. There is always a 'Wiki' ruling at hand usually from 'senior' Wiki Editor Jossi (also a self-confessed employee of Rawta's org)  as to why some information is unpermissable. Wiki 'correctness' as enforced ad-nauseam by Jossi over the years seems mysteriously to have yielded a very squeaky clean Pro-Rawat flavoured article. I wonder why? Ultimately Rawat's supporters are prepared to simply wait for other editors to literally tire and give up any resistance to their plans for this and all other Wikipedia articles that deal with Prem Rawat. What's worse is that few others in Wikipedia-land seem concerned or able to overcome this phenomenon.

In my view Wikipedia need to tighten up on this kind of long-term misuse. Their rules and guidelines are proving to have loopholes which are readily exploited by powerful groups who have the means, motives and persistence to dominate articles which promote their self interests. I note that Microsoft's attempt to dominate an article by employing a 'blogger' has been an embarrasment to Wiki-boss Wales.

I suggest that the long-term commitment shown by Rawat followers (paid or unpaid) may equally amount to unfair 'blogging'. As a former follower myself I am perfectly aware that my contributions may be seen as biased. I only enjoined work on this article because I felt it was highly misresentative and grossly unfair on critics. I would be happier if both former and current followers were banned from editing this mess and Rawat's article could be the subject of truly impartial editing. That option has been suggested before and welcomed by me but ignored by others. Maybe that would be a solution to consider. And Jossi don't you dare move my comments off this page!PatW 23:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This article does not need to be fair or unfair to critics, Pat. This article, as per Wikipedia policies, need to present what reliable sources say about the subject. And that is what we have been doing. We have researched and found hundreds of sources upon which this article has been created over the last two and a half years. If the result is not of your liking, you can join in and help make it better. But to dismiss the hard work on many editors on the basis that are editors that care about an accurate article on the subject, is in my view, inappropriate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree I think that fairness is an important aspiration. No, I accept that there is some valid work there and I respect your attempts to be fair. But I don't believe you've succeeded in fairness and, despite all your Wiki-correctness, you or some others have somehow almost 'surgically' removed much valid criticism that was mentioned and referenced, and also managed to leave out a whole raft of important fact as exemplified by the glaring omission of any mention of Rawat's teaching the ashram way of life! That information was there! I pop in after an absence of a few months and lo! it's all gone along with everything else I edited! Furthermore this talk page still has diehards Momento, you and this Rainer fellow still trying to turn black into white even arguing that Rawat did not teach the ashram way of life! Can you expect me to take this stuff seriously? Please don't be surprised that I don't have so much faith that your particular brand of Wiki-Correctness is yielding an accurate and valuable resource. PatW 00:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

PatW is 100% correct and every1 who reads this page shold read what PatW says to understand what is going on hear

The Return of VictorO!
Just in time to participate in a revert war! Coincidence? Mael-Num 00:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, because of your revert war. Vic —Preceding unsigned comment added by VictorO (talk • contribs)
 * So, you're saying you came here with the sole purpose of reverting my work? Mael-Num 01:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The purpose is to stop bad work. Was better before. Vic —Preceding unsigned comment added by VictorO (talk • contribs)

I would advise all  editors not to edit war. Some of you have been blocked or close to be blocked because of recurring reverts. Revert once if you must, to show your disagreement with an edit, but then please discuss changes in talk and seek to reach consensus instead of entering into an edit war. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Lead
Andries says, regarding "Or to p", "we should tell the whole story, not a one-sided version of the story". I agree 100%. So if we allow one side of the story - "the claims of divinty"; we must also allow the other side of the story "the denials of divinty". Couldn't agree more. That way we avoid the suggestion of bias that would arise if we only told one side.Momento 12:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Rawat was not exactly consistent and clear in his denials and if we write in the lead that Rawat sometimes denied to be divine when asked about it then we should also write that he sometimes did not clearly deny it, confirmed it or was ambiguous about it. See Talk:Prem_Rawat. Andries 12:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL do U understand wut criticizm means? U dun get 2 criticize teh critics it doesnt work like that

I'm afraid you misunderstand what two sides of the story means. One side of the story is that some scholars say Rawat claimed to be God/divine, the other side is that Rawat always denied he was God and there are several quotes to prove it. To add a third side as you suggest, like "maybe he did, maybe he didn't", leaves us open to having to incorporate the other side of that story as well. We have to present both sides since some editors see it as a contentious issue. We don't need a third angle. Quite frankly I don't think it needs to be in the lead. Please change back, someone's at the door.Momento 13:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I continue to disagree with you strongly. Andries 13:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * One side of the story is that scholars wrote that Rawat made claims of divinity. The other sided of the story is that Rawat sometimes denied to be divine when explicitly asked about, but also confirmed to be divine or was ambigious about it, or especially evaded the question when about it. To write in the lead that he denied to be divine while omitting that he also confirmed it, evaded the question, or was ambiguous about it is one-sided. Andries 13:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is one sided now, Andries. Please fix it, or I will. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it one-sided now? Andries 16:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Jossi, what do you suggest should be written about it? That Rawat sometimes denied being divine, but that he also did affirmed to be the Lord The Universe when addressed as such. Clearly this is a somewhat complicated issue that cannot be summarized in a few words and hence I support omitting this from the lead section. I continue to disagree strongly with one-sided summaries in the lead such as Momento proposes. Andries 16:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He never affirmed that. Andries. We cannot squeeze all the scholars assessments, the denial and rebuttals on the lead, so we have to say that reports of such claims were reported in the press and by some scholars and that these are disputed. That's all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I misinterpreted. May be we can say that they were sometimes disputed by Rawat in interviews or something like that. Andries 16:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Try fixing it, would you? I also responded to your RFC comments above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have attempted to fix this by using the term "disputed" rather than "denied", as per above discussion. Also added other pertinent sources such as Hunt's to the same sentence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How has Hunt disputed this? I would say that Rawat sometimes denied claims of divinity when questioned about the matter. Andries 19:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say that Hunt confirmed that Rawat had a divine status when he wrote the following, "Once viewed by followers as Satguru or Perfect Master, he also appears to have surrendered his almost divine status as a guru." Andries 19:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (a) He speaks of the followers; (b) he speaks of "almost", (c) He says that "Maharaji speaks not of God, but of the god or divinity within, the power that gives existence. " As for disputed, denied, sometime denied, what would be the best way to say this? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If the quotes I just inserted in the RFC are real, no logical person can argue that Rawat thought he was god. As for being divine, Rawat believes he is and he believes we are as well. That's the whole point of his teachings - to experience the divine within each of us.Momento 20:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I will not not accept anything less than "always denied". Most interviewers either did some research or had the common sense to understand that a human being couldn't be God, and so didn't ask the ridiculous question "Are you God?". The few fools that did were told, "I'm a human with blood and bones, I am not God". End of story.Momento 20:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Adding scholars' quotes to the lead is completely against the purpose of the lead. If editors are allowed to insert their favourite quotes that suit their POV into the lead, the lead will degenerate into an edit war. Either the briefest mention of "divinity" or nothing at all. I have removed the extra material from the divinity sentence.Momento 20:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Andries, I think that you are making a mistake. The quote about "Guru greater than God, because he can show you God", is not a claim of divinity. It is a claim that "guru can show you God". Your interpretation is incorrect. Note that you have re-inserted that statement four times today, in violation of WP:3RR. I would suggest you self-revert to avoid being blocked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Let the reader decide about the interpretation of that quote. Andries 21:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Jossi, I do not make the interpretation for the reader, but you do so by inserting as a statement of fact that Rawat denied to be divine when asked about it. Andries 21:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My edit, which was reverted, did not speak of denial, but of being disputed, which is more accurate. Would you be agreeable to that wording? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Disputed by whom? I think sometimes denied by Rawat when asked about it by the press is more accurate, though I may miss something. Andries 21:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * First, it would be nice if you avoid using the edit summary to state your POV. Just explain your edit, if you could. The reason I prefer "disputed" is because it was disputed by PR when asked. "disputed: challenged; take exception to; coming into conflict with; in disagreement over something". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sometimes denied???? You sure are missing something. "Sometimes denied" means that "sometimes he didn't deny it". Find me a quote where Rawat's answer to the question "Are you God" is "Yes I am". Then you can say "sometimes he denied it", "sometimes he didn't". I'm sure Rawat was bored to tears by stupid people asking if he was God.Momento 22:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, sometimes he evaded the question, or did not give a denial, or said something that came closer to a confirmation than a denial. Andries 22:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Show me the quote Andries! And here's a good quote from the Lord of the Universe article - "A reporter asked Maharaj ji about the extraordinary claims made by his followers, to which he responds: "Respect me as a humble servant of God trying to establish peace in the world." The reporter then asks why there is such a contradiction between what he says about himself and what his followers say about him, to which Maharaj Ji responded: "Well... why don't you do me a favor ... Why don't you go to the devotees and ask their explanation about it? " Exactly. By Nov 1973 Rawat is tired of answering what he considers to be a moronic question from ill informed reporters.Momento 22:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A totally different intrepretation is possible too that I consider more plausible. Rawat fostered belief in his divinity to his followers, but refused to take responsibility for it.
 * Satsang by Rawat in Tokyo, Japan, October 3, 1972 (printed in the DLM magazine And it is Divine, July 1973) "The greatest problem all around the world today, whether in America, Japan, China, Russia, India or anywhere else in the world, is that people are not in peace. People want peace. Today, if two people fight, the government is supposed to settle them down.  But when governments fight, who is going to settle them down?  The only one who can settle the governments down is the Perfect Master, the incarnation of God Himself, who comes to Earth to save mankind."
 * Talk:Prem_Rawat Andries 22:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The meaning is clear. He talks of an "incarnation" of God. "Incarnation" means "a person who embodies in the flesh a deity, spirit, or abstract quality". Not "a person who is a deity, spirit, or abstract quality". And just so we're clear, "an embodiment" is "the representation or expression of something in such a form". So Rawat is saying the Perfect Master is "a representative or expression" of God".Momento 23:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * For example - "when children fight, who is going to settle them down? The only one who can settle the children down is the Head Master, the incarnation of "School Rules and Regulations", who comes to the classroom to restore order.Momento 23:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to blend the first two media sentences together. Why?? Firstly because reporting that they called him "boy guru" is hardly important enough to warrant inclusion in the lead. And secondly because the latest version - "some reported claims of divinity by his followers [11][12] that Rawat disputed when asked about it by the press" - can mean.
 * "his followers claimed that they were divine but Rawat disputed that they were divine".

Since Andries can't seem to accept that Rawat denied being God every time a person was bold enough to ask and Jossi can't find a phrase that satisfies without adding more words, let's leave this issue to the article, where it only takes up two sentences anyway. So my blended sentence is

"In 1971 he was invited to speak in London and Los Angeles and attracted substantial media attention that focused on his age and the claims of his followers".

Momento 02:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Hey thats grate lets right more sentences that meen nothin liek we can talk about wut type of shoes he was wareing at the airport b/c it doesnt saying anything bad about Rawaqt but it happened so therefore it is OK 2 say

Who cares wut he sez about himself? R we supposed to let people write there own articals? So who cares wut he sez b/c the point is to use OTHER SOURCES to describe sum1 this isnt an autobiography —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.234.44 (talk • contribs)
 * From the way you write your comments, it seems to me that your English is quite poor. I would suggest that you discuss your edits here in talk rather than attempt to "fix" the article yourself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I will request mediation because the disputes tend to proliferate. The latest dispute is on talk:Techniques of Knowledge. Requests for comments have been filed many times and are ignored. Andries 23:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I think it is time to protect this article. Editor 24.46.234.44 and 52-DSL have just arrived on the scene and seem determined to disrupt.Momento 01:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think its prety funny how u run cryying to friend Josi whnevar sum1 does sumthing u dont like. Dood its not all about u and its not ur article so just deal. Oops forgot 2 sign. 52-DSL 01:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your are correct, this article does not belong to anyone, so the way we work on Wikipedia articles is through discussions in talk pages and seeking consensus. I invite you to do that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi ok yah i m here 2 talk so talk instead of deleteing edits u dont like b/c if u dont talk but u just delete and u say that just deleteing is bad than u r a hypocrit so if u think ur right then talk otherwise u lose 01:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a game, 52-DSL, aka 24.46.236.44. The edit you have reverted to six times already, has bad grammar, removed useful material and adds the opinion of minority viewpoints to the lead in contradiction of WP:NPOV. Note that your behavior of personal attacks (calling other editors hypocrites) and your numerous reverts, are considered disruptive and unacceptable. If you want to contribute to this and other articles, please consider changing these behaviors as they will only result in you losing your editing privileges. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jossi aka Memmemtoes i never called ne1 a hypocrite i just sayed wut a hypocrit was and said if if IF **IIIFFF** u acted liek that than u r a hypocrit but if u didntr do that than u couldnt b a hypocrite rite? seem liek a big DUUUUH 2 me but i can c how u mite get confused so i wanted 2 explain it and use a lot of different forms of "if" so u didnt miss the subtletlety this tiem. 52-DSL 02:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that 52-DSL's version of the lead was better than the current lead. I also disagree with Jossi' assertion that 52-DSL's version gave undue weight to minority viewpoint, except may be with regards to brainwashing and mind control. Andries 02:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

thx bro but i didnt write that i just saw it was a better version if you think you can fix up the criticism part than go 4 it 02:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Then make an edit, Andries. There are grammar problems as well. The second sentence "In 1971, Rawat embarked on a mission to the West to speak in London and Los Angeles." is simple terrible English. We also lost bioagraphical info. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats perfect english unless u can point out how it isnt n I bet u cant ps wut is "bioagraphical info" do u mean biographical info? if so what biographical info was lost maybe u can b specific instead of tossing out random thought 52-DSL 02:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Does it bother you Andries that 52-DSL revert puts Hans Rawat as Rawat father rather than the more accepted Shri Hans Ji Maharaj? Does it bother you that he says "introspective" techniques when it is redundant? Does it bother you that the "brainwashing" and "mind control" are undue weight and uncited? Apparently not. Perhaps you shouldn't edit anymore.Momento 02:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Brainwashing is not uncited though is probably undue weight in the lead. Andries 12:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason I do not think it is undue weight is, in that one sentence, I am mentioning all of the criticisms of Rawat. It's a summary, and per WP:LEAD it's proper style. Mael-Num 00:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one
In the previous section I pointed out that the sentence- "some reported claims of divinity by his followers that Rawat disputed when asked about it by the press" - can mean.:"his followers claimed that they were divine but Rawat disputed that they were divine".

So I removed it and replaced it with a more accurate description. Lo and behold it gets changed back to the less accurate and ambiguous version and no one objects. I can only conclude that other editors are having a well deserved break and so I will continue to improve this article on my own. See you when you come back.Momento 08:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is selective. He did not deny always to be divine when asked about it by followers. Statements by scholars should be re-inserted at the place where claims of divinity are treated and not dispersed all over the article. Andries 12:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Rawat said God is within everyone and he believes in a Creator, so we are all divine.Momento 23:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have heard such statements at least a thousand times, so it will not convince me of anything new regarding Rawat's divinity. I know the reasoning very well, because it used to be my own. Andries 00:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * At last you've admitted it. It doesn't matter what Rawat says because you believed Sai Baba was divine. If you can't overcome your bias, don't edit.Momento 12:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh my. The irony, I think I'm choking!  Help! Mael-Num 00:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Andries, I would think that long quotations from scholars should be summarized. I am referring to the Christian analysis by Kranenborg. It should be summarized, using a shot quote if needed, and the rest moved to footnotes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would rather not make summaries because of repeated heavy accusations by you and Momento against me of misparaphrasing, making selective summaries etc. Andries 13:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No problems, I will summarize these, then. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you guys are making this overly complicated. The fact of the matter is that media and other noteworthy observers have stated that Rawat has made claims of divinity. So, just say that in the article. All of the qualifying of this fact that I have seen is bordering on original research, and we ought to avoid that. Mael-Num 00:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Rawat has claimed a belief in God, as a divine creator.That makes us all divine, since divine means - of, from, or like God or a god. It would therefore be inaccurate to state that Rawat said he was divine without including the fact that he has said we are all divine. He has never claimed to be God but his followers may have claimed he was God.Momento 01:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be inaccurate because we're including the fact that noteworthy observers have stated that Rawat has made claims of divinity. We should not include your interpretation of these observers, because that is Original Research Mael-Num 03:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not know what is the issue. We are saying that in the article already. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue is that, after making this valid observation (that third-parties noted Rawat's claims to divinity) that we are effectively trumping this observation by interpreting Rawat's words to show that he didn't really mean that he was divine. That's editorializing, and moreover, it's original research. Mael-Num 20:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone remind me why it is not permissable here to refer to Rawat's quotes from say, Divine Light Mission Publications from the past? Momento is drawing attention away from the real point by saying Rawat said 'we're all divine' etc. The point is that Rawat did initially teach, as his father did (and there are publications that prove this) that there is at any one time on earth, just one individual 'Perfect Master' who is singularly and divinely authorised to 'reveal Knowledge;. Yes, the 'divinity' in others could be 'revealed 'to them by Him - according to his teachings. Magazines in the seventies printed numerous speeches of his where he made it quite clear this was his core belief. Why can't these be quoted? So Momento is not telling the whole truth when he tries to portray Rawat as only describing himself as the 'humble servant of God'. He also gave plenty of other speeches where he demanded considerable respect from his followers as their authoritative and often angry and very demanding Master. Momento seems to simply want to pretend that Rawat always saw the dynamic between him and followers as this unthreatening 'teacher' and 'student'. The fact is that the language he employed during the seventies reflected a far more controlling and undoubtedly less currently 'politically correct' relationship. Then nobody (Rawat included) used the term 'students' and instead we heard about 'servants' and 'devotees' of the 'Master' (not teacher)- also his speeches had an unmistakably more 'authoratative' tone. So I feel Momento's argument relies on the inability of editors to counter his selective 'original research' by referring to Rawat's own words from publications put out by his organisation to promote him and his teachings at the time. This is an absurd situation in my view. Especially since there is comparatively little accurate 'academic' comment on the matter to balance the article.PatW 11:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, Pat. Read the 70's section in which scholarly sources address your point:
 * "During these years, claims of divinity made by the Indian mahatmas, his family, and some followers were reported by the media,[46][47]. Kranenborg wrote in a 1982 article that 'in Maharaj ji's satsangs one can notice a speaking style that resembles very much some Christian evangelization campaigns: a pressing request, an emphasis on the last possibility to choose before it is too late and a terminology in which one is requested to surrender to the Lord, in this case Maharaj ji himself.'[48]The American religious scholar J. Gordon Melton wrote in 1986 that, '[..]Maharaj Ji, as do many of the other Sant Mat leaders, claims to be a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God on earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration.' [49]Rawat sometimes denied claims to be divine in several interviews given to the press and on television.[50][51] In 1971 he had said that yes, he is human (with) hands, bone (and) lungs but that 'guru is greater than God because if you go to guru, guru will show you God'.[52]"
 * There is also a collection of quotes at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Maharaji in which the evolution of the delivery of his teachings can be studied. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I read a lot of it, and thank God there is at least some eligible reference to Rawat's actual former beliefs about himself. I suppose poor Momento must be weeping that he can't delete such entries. I'm still unclear, is it permissable to reference quotes from 'And it is Divine' etc ? PatW 19:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Who's the liar PatW.Momento 19:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Momento, for all I know you may be employed to spend your entire time editing this article on behalf of Rawat or his organisation or you are a current supporter who's only recently involved in Rawat and are simply ignorant about what Rawat taught in the past. Either way, you have advised other editors that they should not edit here, and you seem to want to promote a 'half truth' which could also be described as perpetrating a lie. If you represent Rawat's POV and not just your opinions then what you are saying about the past is unethical and as we are increasingly seeing can be proved as incomplete and misrepresentative. Dozens of people have passed through, thrown their hands up in despair at your persistent 'half truths' and objected and disappeared. Few people have come forward to help defend your arguments either. PatW 20:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No personal attacks


 * Pat, regarding your comments above: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia.


 * Some suggestions:


 * Discuss the article, not the subject;
 * Discuss the edit, not the editor;
 * Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
 * If you feel attacked, do not attack back. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest, Pat, that you remove your personal attack from your comments above. These are not only not helpful, they are in violation with Wikipedia policy. I have placed a warning in your talk page. To Momento: Please keep your cool and do not respond to the obvious provocation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think your probably right, on this occasion Jossi. I apologise for attacking Momento. It's hard to retrain oneself about things you feel passionately about. I've removed what I consider personal attack and apologise to Momento. However it occurs to me that a lot of the anger expressed here towards him and sometimes yourself is due to the suspicion and consequent frustration that you guys are effectively paid by Rawat or his organisation and will not admit it. That would definitely work against a fair article. So it would engender some better relations and a more co-operative atmosphere if you were both transparent about this. PatW 10:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not getting paid to edit Wikipedia. It is not uncommon for long-term editors of Wikipedia, to dedicate what may seem to outsiders to be inordinate amounts of time to the project. Many editors that are passionate about their viewpoints dedicate considerable time to articles they care about. That is not a reason for assuming that a fellow editor is paid. Getting angry only obfuscate one's understanding, Pat. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Jossi, I believe you when you say you are not getting paid by Rawat or any related organisation to edit these articles. I believe you do it from your heart because you are, as you say, passionate about the subject.  To clear up any such misunderstanding, and in the interests of transparency, may I suggest that it would help if you are open about what exactly you are paid to do for Rawat and/or related organisations?  Then we would all be clear that there is no conflict of interest involved with you editing these articles. --John Brauns 00:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a potential conflict of interest as I am employed by a related organization, and hence my disclosure. That potential COI will not disappear by making any further disclosures. Read WP:COI. Note that an employee of Apple Computers will have a  potential COI on articles about its products, key people, etc. regardless of what position he holds at Apple.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Jossi, I think the Apple employee in your example would probably say in what capacity he worked in at Apple, whereas you don't even say which organisation you are employed by. If, for instance, you are employed as webmaster for the TPRF website, then why not say so?  Other editors would then see that the technical skills you employ in your work are not in conflict with editing these articles.  Of course you don't have to give more details, but you must understand that your apparent unnecessary secrecy will naturally lead to suspicion and speculation such as Pat's. --John Brauns 07:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Unnecessary secrecy"? Why should Jossi, or I for that matter, have to cater to PatW's curiosity? If PatW's lack of knowledege creates suspicion and speculation, it is his responsibility to curb it, not mine. Particularly when the result of his suspicion and speculation is an attack on me.Momento 09:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is nothing to do with "secrecy", John. Simply, I have no interest in disclosing anything about me beyond what is in my user page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that all you have disclosed is a mysterious but unexplained 'potential conflict of interest', then you will just have to accept, Jossi, that no one here will be able to judge whether any edit or decision you make on Wikipedia is colored by this 'potential conflict of interest'. --John Brauns 00:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You keep pressing that point, while you could have taken the hint. The potential conflict of interest is obviously there, as per my disclosure. Involved editors in this article and the community at large will be the judge of my edits and my substantial contributions to this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify this further, note that contributions to this and related articles represent less than 8% of all my contributions to Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * At the risk of stating the obvious, any editor who hosts an anti-Rawat website has a demonstrable conflict of interest when editing this article. But you are not alone, in my experience virtually every editor of this article has a strong bias. The solution is that we have to be very strict with following Wiki policies. I don't know how Jimbo Wales and his pals did it but the policies and guidelines ensure a good article if followed.Momento 02:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

DLM not disbanded
Jossi, why did change my neutral, factually accurate edit in the Margaret Singer section? If an organisation is disbanded, it no longer exists. Some aspects of DLM, such as the ashrams, were disbanded, but the organisation itself was not. I'll give you a chance to explain before I re-correct the text. --John Brauns 07:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't so much interested in the truth as in what is said by verifiable sources. In this case the source cited [58] is Melton in the Encyclopedia of American Religions - "In the early 1980s, Maharaj ji moved to disband the Divine Light Mission and he personally renounced the trappings of Indian culture and religion, disbanding the mission, he founded Elan Vital, an organization to his future role as teacher". So Jossi, quite correctly, amended your edit to accurately reflect the source.Momento 09:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * John, you may want to read WP:ATT so that you can be better informed about our core policies. The term "disbanded" has been used by several scholars. In this context it does mean the closure of the DLM headquarters, the dramatic downsizing in personnel, the abandonment of religious trappings, etc. The paragraph now provides the necessary source and context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Summarizing scholars opinion
I have summarized a few salient points from Geaves papers ((See Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars, feedback would be appreciated. There is more work to do to incorporate other scholar material from there, but I think that taking one step at a time is best as it allows other editors to comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Jossi. Geaves' assertion that Rawat wants to play down his hagiographic background needs to be balanced by the fact that Rawat himself drew attention quite proudly to his lineage (photo's names etc dates etc) "This is the traceable history thus far" were his words I believe. Rawat cited his father, Sarupanand and so on, right the way back to Totapuri (a well-respected Sant). Rawat obviously wanted to promote his 'take' on his lineage but, tellingly, a few years ago withdrew it from his site. So maybe it should be made clear exactly when Rawat decided that the hagiogarphy was dispensible or whatever. PatW

RFC Summary
Should a biographical book by Andrea Cagan be considered an unreliable source on the basis that the publisher is a small publisher and has published only one book? (The book was published Jan 2007, and is available at Amazon.com: )


 * Comment by involved editors
 * When a company has published only one book then it is by definition not a reputable publisher. Even worse, the publisher may be affiliated with the subject or may be a vanity publishing house. Andries 20:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Andries, my argument is that even if it was a self-published source as you assert (without producing any evidence to support that argument, BTW), that in itself is not grounds for not using that source. See WP:SELFPUB. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Andrea Cagan is the author of this book not Prem Rawat, she has written or co-authored several other biographies and she has just as much credibility as any of the "scholars" and "encyclopedias" cited in this article. Even if, as Andries suggests, Cagan is a questionable source "material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as: it is relevant to their notability;it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.Momento 23:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:ATT states clearly that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." "A questionable source ... includes sources that are entirely promotional in nature." "A self-published source is material, online or in print ... whose publisher is a vanity press, web hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight."  "With self-published sources, no independent entity stands between the author and publication; the material may not have been subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field." My question is simply - on what criteria can a first-time publisher be judged to be reliable or not?  Where's the evidence that Mighty River Press exhibits an editorial oversight that isn't 'entirely promotional in nature'?  Until that can be settled, and until there is some evidence for reliability, why assume? :Revera 15:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments by editors responding to this RFC
 * I'm not sure why the size of the publishing house matters. Is the author herself a reliable source? With over a dozen books published by reputable publishers (Morrow, Berkley, Warner), I'm not sure why a having a new publishing house suddenly makes her work unreliable; nor can I think of any cases where an author is considered a reliable source except for some of the author's books. If, say, Steven Hawking decided to start his own publishing house, would the first book out of that house be an unreliable source? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Jpgordon's points are well made; a reliable author doesn't suddenly become unreliable simply by being published by a new publishing house. Jayjg (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Revera asks "on what criteria can a first-time publisher be judged to be reliable or not?" -- the answer to that is that it has been general practice in the past to assume that books published by non-vanity publishers are reliable, unless evidence is presented otherwise.  Now, if any evidence of inaccuracy in this book is presented, we can look on books published by this press with some suspicion, until then we ought to regard them at least neutrally.  "Where's the evidence that Mighty River Press exhibits an editorial oversight that isn't 'entirely promotional in nature'?"  I haven't read the book, but I'd assume that if it were entirely promotional, it wouldn't have reached the rather impressive Amazon sales rank it currently has (or the even better ones suggested by the press releases on the publisher's site).  The press presents themselves as a serious non-fiction press.  I think, in absence of evidence to the contrary, that this means editorial fact-checking is taking place, particularly for biographies.  "Until that can be settled, and until there is some evidence for reliability, why assume?"  Why not assume? Seriously -- what is the harm in Wikipedia making the mistake of repeating (in the worst case) errors made in a book that has apparently reached Amazon sales rank #9, and is therefore almost certainly the most popular book ever about its subject?  It can't reflect any worse than ignoring the material could. JulesH 18:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Information taken from this biography should be verified using another source.
 * 1) It is suspicious when a writer who has published with well-known presses suddenly publishes with an unknown press. It leads one to ask: Was her manuscript rejected by reputable firms? If so, why? and questions along this line.
 * 2) Biographies are not usually fact-checked, even at reputable presses such as Penguin. These firms do not have the time or money to do this. That is why scholarly biographies written by academics are more reliable than those written by journalists or free-lance writers. Academics put their career on the line when writing a biography, so they are careful to add footnotes while journalists, etc., have less to lose.
 * 3) Scholarly presses, such as Cambridge University Press, Harvard University Press, Oxford University Press, University of Chicago Press, etc. are the best because they have a stringent peer-review system. Multiple scholars read and evaluate each manuscript before it is published. Awadewit 16:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not accept Mighty River Press/Andrea Cagan's new book as being reliable? Then again, why?
Surely its publisher is reliable? Surely it's not purely promotional? Surely it's been subject to independent editorial overview? Surely an independent entity stands between author and publication?

Well, as someone recently observed: "I am sure that every single criticism of Rawat in the book, every failure of his noted in the book, every mistake of his and every character and personality defect detailed in the book are true".

Hmmmmmmm. Trouble is - where are those criticisms? Where's the balance? Where's the track record of this first-time publisher? (Mighty River Press)

Couldn't be a vanity piece, could it? Of course not. Wiki's criteria are far too lax to let it deserve that definition.

Revera 22:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * See the comments made by non-involved editors in the RfC above. Yes, the book is sympathetic to PR, so what? That in itself is no grounds for dismissing  material from that book. Is there any specific citation from that book that has been used in the article that bothers you? If so, please describe it, so that it can be addressed. You can check these citations by reviewing the Reference section and clicking on the caret, so check what sentence the source is referring to. We have used that source in half-dozen places so far, so that should be easy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Using what could be a self-published, vanity piece, or a biased or unduly flattering report, is questionable. So caution is needed even according to Wikipedia guidelines. Also caution is needed for the same reasons when referring from scholars like Ron Geaves (see my point above). It would be best to indicate that he is a follower of Prem Rawat before giving him much space. Just because he is a scholar does not mean he is right. I personally know a professor of Hindu Philosophy who has often encountered Geaves and who considers many of his assertions quite wrong. Clearly Geaves' self-proclaimed affiliation with Rawat could make him biased when trying to be scholarly about this subject and so a cautious editor would also inform that he is a follower when citing him. PatW


 * That information about Geaves is already included in this article, as per the source provided. As for the self-published possibility, see WP:SELFPUB. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, ironically, it is Geaves' own assertions about Rawat's hagiography that are actualIy a liitle contentious - associating him with Totapuri etc. and indulging in quite a bit of wishful-thinking and speculation. I see that Geaves is referred to, in the article, as an 'early follower'. Is that sufficient to inform people that he is a 'long-time' follower? I have amended Geaves' page to make it clearer. PatW


 * Pat, Cagan's book makes it clear that he was one of the early students and still is. We can use that as a source. You cannot just say that in his article without a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also note, that the association with Totapuri, is not just Geaves'. This information is also sourced to an early version of Prem Rawat's personal website. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. There is a bit of a contradiction. Please see my point above: ''Geaves' assertion that Rawat wants to play down his hagiographic background needs to be balanced by the fact that Rawat himself drew attention quite proudly to his lineage (photo's names etc dates etc) "This is the traceable history thus far" were his words I believe. Rawat cited his father, Sarupanand and so on, right the way back to Totapuri (a well-respected Sant). Rawat obviously wanted to promote his 'take' on his lineage but, tellingly, a few years ago withdrew it from his site. So maybe it should be made clear exactly when Rawat decided that the hagiogarphy was dispensible or whatever.''PatW


 * The problem Pat, is that we cannot synthesize material and arrive to specific conclusions (See WP:OR. All we can do, as we have done in the article, is to present the information, such as the info about lineage in PR's website (is in the techniques of K section) as well as the opinion of Geaves. If there is such contradiction, that is left to the reader to reach that conclusion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm baaack!!
Thank you Andries and Jossi for coming to my aid.Momento 10:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see that despite the previous dispute, and the previous editwarring, Mael-Num is back adding same contentious material in violation of WP:NPOV and without seeking consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The viewpoint of three people (Kraneborg, Levine and Schabel) are not enough basis to warrant thee inclusion of these opinions in the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LS, a summary of criticism must be given if said criticism exists in the article. I am summarizing the bulk of criticism cited elsewhere in the article, and providing full citations.  This is policy, so please don't delete it summarily.  Mael-Num 20:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and you forgot Kent (who is cited). How many critical opinions need to be expressed before it merits a note in the lead?  Hehe, don't bother answering that.  It was rhetorical.  The answer is one, if it's notable, and as we have gone over again and again, it is notable.  Mael-Num 20:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

To Mael-Num: We placed a request for comment to which two non-involved editors replied related to Cagan's book. Please read the RfC comments rather than assert a viewpoint that is incorrect. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As you can plainly see from my comments, I read that section. WP policy trumps any consensus.  Sorry, but as an admin, you should know this. Mael-Num 20:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Jossi, I understand that Cagan's book has no foot notes or a single reference to an outside source. So that is apart from the novel publishing house another reason not to use it or at least not to use to source controversial statements. Andries 05:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The one that is editwarring, is you, Mael. Please read the comments made on the RfC, as well as other comments related to the lead. I would argue that your editing behavior does not bode well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments above. You're the one who's initiating an edit war by reverting cited and valid information. Mael-Num 20:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope. We had a dispute about Cagan's book. As we were in deadlock, we pursued dispute resolution and placed a request for comments. Two well respected Wikipedians responded (one is a member of the ArbCom, and the other just ended his tenure in the ArbCom), stating that they saw no issue with such source. You have decided to ignore these comments and revert, and thus you are being disruptive of the dispute resolution process, that is in itself official policy. As for the addition of contentious material to the lead on the basis of one person's opinion, that is in violation of WP:NPOV. The summary of the criticism I added that was based on a long standing wording that had consensus and which you reverted, was supported by several sources and thus compliant. I would suggest that you self-revert and avoid editwarring again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, let me explain this so you can understand it. I read the RFC section.  It did not address the issue raised as to WP policy.  Therefore, it says nothing about it.  Also, this was not an ArbCom case, this was an RfC.  Consensus does not trump policy.  You're wikilawyering it suit your purposes.
 * And the "long-standing summary" is nothing of the sort. It's a "summary" that has only been supported only by yourself and Momento.  Consensus has stood in my favor in the past; only your dogged determination to revert when others aren't paying attention can be attributed to any status of "long-standing".  And, again, conensus doesn't matter.  This is policy.  Please stop being disingenuous about your understanding of policy.  If in fact you are unfamiliar, please take some time to review it before you editwar. Mael-Num 20:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, the long-standing summary of the criticism was in the article for many months, and was added by an editor that is no longer active. As for the RfC comments, these are not in contradiction with policy, on the contrary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that the one that editwarred in the past, and is editwarring now, is you. So please tone down the rhetoric, could you? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your gainsaying changes nothing. If you can't address the facts of my rebuttal, and can only contradict, your argument doesn't hold much weight. Mael-Num 20:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please cite a diff to this "long standing summary", because the issue at hand is that I added it because it didn't exist. The summary you are no doubt referring to was deleted by Momento because he (and you) would prefer that all notable criticism of Rawat be omitted or marginalized.  History should not repeat itself, in this case.  Mael-Num 20:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As the section on scholar opinions attests, notable criticism is fully explored in the article, so your point is moot. As for the long standing summary of the criticism, which you changed and subsequently editwarred about, it has been there in one form or another since March 1st, 2006 see diff. So to summarize:
 * You have changed a long standing summary of the criticism, and edit warred aboutr it already once
 * You are dismissing the RfC comments related to Cagan book, and as such you have chosen to unilateraly dismiss the dispute resolution process.
 * As I said, this behavior does not bode well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To claim that the required summary of criticism as spelled out plainly in WP:LS has existed in "one form or another" is an outright lie. Where was it as of the diff I cited?  Where is it now?  Again, I didn't change anything, as you allege.  It didn't exist until I added it.  It's supposed to be there, per Wikipedia style.  Mind your own behavior, Jossi.  Lying doesn't help anything.  Mael-Num 22:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please avoid casting such aspersions These type of comments are not helpful. The summary of the criticism as per the diff I provided was inserted in March 1st 2006. It was removed quite recently as a consequence of an edit war. The summary that I added, was an attempt to restore a summary which had consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ron Geaves isn't just 'an early student' he is a 'current follower'.

Jossi, on the page about Ron Geaves I changed this sentence: "suggested to him to combine his first hand knowledge of the subject (Geaves is one of the earliest Western students of Prem Rawat[2]) with his academic training to provide insights into this movement [3]" to:- "suggested to him to combine his first hand knowledge of the subject (as a long-time follower of Prem Rawat[2])) with his academic training to provide insights into this movement. [3]" Now you've reverted it back when I wasn't looking. Why? And do you object to using the word 'follower' for some reason. Why is 'student' better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PatW (talk • contribs)


 * He was one of the earliest students as per the source provided, but I do not have a problem in stating that he is currently a student. I will check Cagan's book to see if there is a mention of that. As for "follower" vs. "student", why do you prefer follower? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is what Cagan's book say on page 302 "A month later, in July of 2005, Maharaji was invited to speak at Oxford University, where Ron Geaves, one of the first Westerners to visit Maharaji in India in 1969, was an alumnus." Would that be sufficient to assert that he is a current adherent? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Same definitions
Per Merriam-Webster: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Follower: one that follows the opinions or teachings of another. Synonyms PARTISAN mean one who gives full loyalty and support to another. FOLLOWER may apply to people who attach themselves either to the person or beliefs of another . ADHERENT suggests a close and persistent attachment . DISCIPLE implies a devoted allegiance to the teachings of one chosen as a master . PARTISAN suggests a zealous often prejudiced attachment .

Geaves did state himself somewhere that he is a current student by the way. I just can't find the reference right now. It seems someones removed it!? I don't mind using the word 'student' occasionally, but all the time makes these articles look like revisionism. I guess I was right in thinking your objection was to the word 'follower' as it is not the way Premies like to describe themselves these days since they are trying to tone down the implication of dependency I guess. The word 'follower' actually better describes 'premies' during the most part of Rawat's history so I would say it is quite acceptable to use. I somewhat object that the weight of 'students' editing here effectively means that Rawat's current 'lingo' is the one that is largely used. I think this is disingenuous. That is because a lot of the formerly used words such as 'Premie' actually means 'Lover' or 'devotee' (at least that's what Rawat told us) and nothing like the accepted meaning of the word 'student'. The same applies to dozens of other words which were common language amongst premies for years. They are here replaced by words that reflect Rawat's general 'toning down' of the devotional aspect that was so prevalent for years. In Wikipedia terms, I would say that the way the predominance of the movements current revised 'Lingo' here and the conspicuous absence of words that are perhaps more apt in the minds of others rather implies that words like 'student' are being used in a 'weasely' way. In fact the whole thing leaves a distinctly 'weasely' impression. Why don't you look up the word student? I think you may agree that it's less accurate than 'follower' or 'disciple' for that matter!PatW


 * There is nothing inherently wrong with the word "premie", or with the term "follower", or with the term "student", "discpiple", or "adherent", why should it be? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I was wrong. I found this statement from Ron Geaves.

"It is not an aspect of the academic study of religion that one has to disclose one's faith position. The religious studies approach to the study of religion allows for people of any religion or none to be involved, as long as their scholarship is sound. Some of my colleagues know of my background, others do not. My spiritual journey belongs in the realm of religious freedom of choice. Almost everybody I know amongst my academic colleagues has a personal faith journey that is not declared in their writings."

 innocuous and obvious observations about Ron Geaves removed at Jossi's suggestionPatW

Jossi, you said " I do not have a problem in stating that he is currently a student". What I am driving at is that it would appear that Geaves himself would have a problem with you saying he is a current student. That is why I included his statement which was made in response to somebody challenging him on this very matter. PatW


 * I would be very surprised if that was true. I remember an open letter (now off-line but still available on the internet archive: ) in which he stated the contrary. In Cagan's book he name is on the index: Geaves, Ron, 109–112, 114–116, 133, 153, 156, 172, 181, 237, 302, so I do not think that your concern are substantiated. Maybe you are mistaken in your assessment of Geaves? In a any case this is not pertinent to this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

But Jossi, that internet archive statement is where I found that quote. Is there another then? Maybe that's what I thought I'd seen too. Anyway do you think we could say he is a current student or not. My feeling is that it would be transparent to say so, but I 'm not sure Cagan's book indicates that fact since I don't have it. PatW
 * Sure. I think that the fact is not disputed, he speaks about it in the open letter, and it is implied in Cagan's book. Please add. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Scholars summary
Some how "Scholarly opinions and criticism" has been summarised in the lead as one sentence of pure criticism. Since many scholars have positive things to say the sentence is obviously totally biased. Momento 09:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

To remove the bias I have removed the comments about "charges that organizations affiliated with Rawat are cults that employ manipulative techniques such as brainwashing and mind control" since this article is about Rawat not "affiliated organisations" and these comments are more than 20 years old. And I have altered the rest to more accurately follow the cited quotes. The sentence is still biased to the negative and should be removed.Momento 10:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A 'neutral balanced article', even in Wikipedia terms, means an article that contains a fair balance of negative and positive comments. To remove a sentence because it is negative is therefore detrimental to that goal. Don't you think that this article is weighted towards the positive right now? PatW


 * The reason for the removal of that sentence is not about balance, but about undue weight as argued previously. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Not correct PatW. Balanced doesn't mean 50% criticism and 50% positive, it means that the artcle should fairly represent the available, verifiable material. This article is 100% undeniable and sourced facts about which there is no debate. The only issue comes about as to which facts to present. PR has been talking publicly and on the record for 40 years and spoken to millions, his Words of Peace program is heard all over the world, the fact that he attracted a few scholarly critics in the 70s is, in proportion, minute.Momento 20:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd strongly recommend you familiarize yourself with WP:LS. Or at least this part: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." See that last part? Describe its notable controversies. That means we should summarize the controbersial bits, because they most certainly are there. Cherry picking is bad. Let's try not to do that, 'kay? Mael-Num 01:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Momento, your judgement as to what amounts to notable controversy does not represent a concensus here. Your argument that critics are small compared to the number of people who've listened to him is a bit like saying that because some famous person's historic audience (in sum) far outweighs the number of his past critics you shouldn't mention any existing past or present controversies. Nobody is suggesting that the controversies be given undue weight, but it seems they do rightly deserve mentioning however 'small' in notability in your opinion. In short, the controversies may seem relatively small to you compared to Rawat's current successes but that does not make them un-notable at all. Besides, in their day (when Rawat's followers in the West were also very few indeed) the controversies were undoubtedly notable. Besides comparing fan numbers with critics numbers is not a criteria for establishing the notability of the very real controversies, that Mael-Num (and dozens of other people) have repeatedly tried to remind you did actually exist. Do you understand how your argument is actually specious? PatW


 * Wrong again M-N & PatW. A controversy is a "disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated"! When has Rawat been involved in a "prolonged, public, and heated disagreement"? The only "prolonged disagreement" was his break up with his family and it wasn't "public or heated". And we can only find half a dozen, usually Christian, scholars who have made mild criticism in over 40 years. There have been no controversies.Momento 20:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a selective interpretation of meaning of the word 'controversy' Momento. Where did you get this definition? And are you suggesting this particular refinement of the meaning of 'controversy' reflects the requirements of Wilipedia?PatW

I find no definition that suggests 'controversy' means 'prolonged or public'.  From Wikipedia:''A controversy or dispute is a matter of opinion over which parties actively disagree, argue, or debate. Controversies can range in size from private disputes between two individuals to large-scale disagreements between societies.From http://www.dictionary.net/  Dispute; debate; disputation; disagreement;altercation; contention; wrangle; strife; quarrel. From Chambers dictionary: A debate: contention: dispute: a war of opinions in books, pamphlets, etc to oppose, argue against.''PatW
 * I agree with PatW here, and I'd only like to add that charges of brainwashing and mind control are, indeed, contentious and controversial. I can't imagine how someone would genuinely see it as otherwise.  Indeed, the goal isn't 50% positive and 50% negative attention, as can be seen by the fact that only a handful of lines out of a four paragraph lead are devoted to the negatives.  The goal of including this criticism is to give a reader who only has time to peruse the lead an idea of the content of the whole article.  To omit the full summary, citing the material from sources such as The Washington Post, is to fail to give the negative attention its due weight. Mael-Num 21:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I used the Oxford American Dictionary. You'll note your definition of controversy as" a matter of opinion over which parties actively disagree, argue, or debate", has Rawat "actively disagreed, argued, or debated" with his critics? I don't think so. And the emphasis on "wrangle, strife and quarrel", can you find Rawat engaged in any of these? And whilst brainwashing and mind control might be contentious and controversial,  James Lewis writing that "a number of ex-members became critics of the movement, attacking it with charges of brainwashing and mind control", doesn't make a controversy. It is merely one sentence in an encyclopedia in which a scholar has noted some people's opinion about a movement (not Rawat). It doesn't deserve to be in the article, let alone inh the lead.Momento 21:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, to summarize PatW, this particular refinement of the meaning of 'controversy' does not reflect the requirements of Wikipedia. The objective of a lead section is to give a summary of what is given in greater detail elsewhere in the article.  It's a "short version" of the subject for people who don't want to read the whole thing.  To exclude the references to PR's involvement in charges of brainwashing and/or mind control is to give undue weight, by omitting a notable fact that is found elsewhere in the article.  This is not proper style, per WP:LS  Mael-Num 22:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The "brainwashing and mind control" comment is one line in the scholars section of 211 lines. It represents less than .5% of the scholars section.

And it is not even a comment by a scholar! And you think leaving it out of the lead is "undue weight". Thank God for Wiki rules.Momento 01:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. "Thank God for Wiki rules."  We don't discard relevant and notable information just because, in one editor's opinion, the tons of padding given to other "scholarly opinion" (such as current adherants of Rawat's teachings) surround it. The guideline is to include any relevant criticisms.   As this particular element of criticism is long-standing, it has passed muster for relevance.  The rules therefore state it should be included, and as you seem to agree, let's play by the rules. Mael-Num 01:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. Nowhere in WP:LS does it "state it should be included".Momento 02:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should read the paragraph that notes if there are any notable controversies, to summarize them. Mael-Num 06:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * M-N, maybe you should read your own paragraph. You clearly wrote that the WP:LS "guideline is to include any relevant criticisms", which is untrue. And that is what I was responding to.Momento 06:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I see the source of your confusion. I wasn't directly quoting the article, and instead you should read for context.  Mael-Num 08:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Momento, don't be ridiculous. Of course Rawat doesn't need to be personally engaged in the controversies that are reported. He is the subject of current controversy as is plainly exemplified by ex-premie.org challenging him on a number of things, not to mention his inclusion in dozens of anti-cult sites on the Internet. Just because he chooses to ignore those challenges does not mean there is no controversy. Furthermore his organisation has engaged in these controversies on his behalf to the extent of legal proceedings and anti 'apostate' propoganda on their websites. This is clearly in defense of him. One might observe that this very article is a hotbed of controversy about whom ? Prem Rawat.PatW


 * Yes, Rawat does need to be involved in a controversy about him, ootherwise it is a debate with only one debator. The ex-premies aren't a controversy, nor is being listed on cult sites along with the Amish and TM. The fact that he and everyone else ignores the ex-premies is testament to the lack of "notable controversy". And the legal proceedings were about illegal use of stolen material not a "controversy".Momento 01:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're moving goalposts to better suit your views. To claim that, because one possible cherry-picked definition of "controversy" can be narrowly interpreted to require that there is some sort of documented debate in order to be a controversy is patently absurd.  Mael-Num 06:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What's the problem with debate? It is a common synonym which appeared in the three definitions that PatW put forward. It must be PatW who did the "cherry picking". Other synonyms include - dispute, disagree, argue, disagreement, altercation, contention, wrangle, strife and quarrel. Rawat hasn't been involved in any of these activities with anyone.Momento 06:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "What's the problem with debate?" Thesaurus much?  Okay, here's a serious question: Do you know what a straw man argument is?  Because this whole spiel you replied with is a perfect example.  I'm not going to fence with you on semantics.  Just understand this: the relevance of controversy, in this case, is that scholars whose opinions are valid enough to be given already exist in the text of the article.  We don't need Rawat to debate these critics in an open forum in order to cite them, as plainly seen by their continued inclusion, despite editors like yourself attempting to have their opinions removed from the article.  Furthermore, given that this criticism exists in the body of the article, it is wikipedia style to give a summary of said criticism in the lead.  Playing this "Controversy?  What controversy?" game is getting a bit tiresome.  The rules are clear, and so is the controversy.  Read, and re-read until you see it for yourself. Mael-Num 08:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Critics main websites
Mael-Num, can I ask you to comment too on this please? Since Elan Vital and now this new Cagan book address the problem of internet critics, especially infamous ones (in terms of the organisation) like Mike Dettmers etc. would it not be all the more appropriate now to include links to the ex-premie websites (which I believe have also grown in number since this matter was last discussed here)? One in particular www.ex-premie .org is a large resource on documents about Prem Rawat's past and includes statements by Dettmers etc. It is also a co-operative creation by a number of ex-premies and therefore has some status as representative of that groups opinions. In the past Jossi and Momento have removed all such links on the grounds that the so-called 'ex-premies' were an insignificant minority hate group etc. Whether or not they are hateful or a relatively small group I would have thought their viewpoint should be at least referred to in the light of the continued reference to them by Cagan etc. Although Rawat's organisations (and probably Cagan too I'd expect) accuse Dettmers and the 'internet critics' of slander etc. I don't believe they dispute the statements there enough to have brought libel action. I suppose I should get this Cagan book. Maybe someone who has it could comment. Jossi? Momento?PatW
 * To be honest, PatW, I'm not entirely familiar with that website in particular. Other sites I am familiar with, such as rickross.com and caic.org.au, from what I've seen would be suitable because they are collections of articles published elsewhere, and they seem to maintain a suitable standard of editorial oversight; providing references to other sources regarding subject matter.  I would like to take some time to browse ex-premie.org resources before I fire off an opinion on their content.  Unfortunately, today's been a little hectic for me so I might need to get back to this, tomorrow the latest.  Sorry. Mael-Num 01:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We have referred to that group as a small group of about 20-25 activists/detractors and about which there is not much information that has been published. Of course, information about this group of detractors that appeared in published sources could be used in the article. Note that previously, you made a case that Cagan's book was self published or of dubious reliability. If that is the case, we cannot use that source to support claims about third-parties, so we should not use that source (and we haven't) to describe Cagan's views of these group of detractors (see WP:SELFPUB). Pat, also note that this issue is quite loaded, and as you well know in the past we have had extensive swats of text about that group, most of which you found unacceptably negative, so please be aware of the possible unintended consequences of your request. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And in response to this, I wonder who "we" refers to. Whose conclusion was it that the entire body of ex-premies is 20-25 persons?  Is this original research?  If not, what is the source for it, and is it reliable?  It seems an extraordinary claim that all of the ex-premies of the world only consists of 20-25 people, considering DLM and EV have boasted numbers in the millions in the past, and currently claims just over 1 million members worldwide.  Mael-Num 01:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * TNote that the site is not a site of "ex-followers", but a site of critical ex-followers. Nevertheless, yours is a question that even if can be answered, it is not relevant to the discussion. See below. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So, it's not relevant because you say it's not relevant? Surely you jest. Make an actual argument that shows this site is an attack site in "wikipedia parlance", as opposed to your flimsy dismissal of it as such.  Hiding behind some Wikirules just because you don't like their message isn't good 'nuff.  Mael-Num 01:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Read, as per policy and not by "flimy dismissal" material from that site is deprecated and should not be used in a biography of a living person≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh...yeah. I did.  Where do you think I got "attack site" and "wikipedia parlance" from?  My own psychic intuition?  Or in other words, your argument doesn't work.  It's no such thing.  You're just obfuscating the issue.  Mael-Num 02:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you are of course, entitled to your opinion. But the BLP policy is unambiguous on this matter, as you may have learned from my clarification below. Also note that your style of re-adding again and again the same disputed material, will surely earn you to lose your editing privileges, and nothing else. Editwarring accomplishes nothing, a conclusion that sooner or later you will surealy arrive to. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, just consider me a slow learner. Or perhaps I've just got the wrong example.  You seem to have enjoyed some successes through editwarring, meatpuppeting, and gaming the system.  Should I just do as you say, and not as you do?
 * And the BLP policy, as cited by you, is ambiguous. Let me explain it again, so that maybe you can understand it.  If you want to argue that something is against policy, you should maybe give an example of what violates a policy, and what policy it violates.  You may even want to explain why it violates that policy.  That's how good arguments are formed.
 * Oh, and by the by, "earn me to lose"? Yer a hoot. Mael-Num 03:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * From Wiki Five Pillars "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all". Critics in Cagan's book represent about three senetences in 400 pages, about .01%. Momento 20:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There was absolutely no concensus concerning the number of former followers of Prem Rawat, nor that they are a tiny minority. It's absolutely false.  Jossi and Momento had a concensus of two (editors), but not all editors agreed then nor do they now about inclusion.  The Cagan vanity press biography opens the door for mention of ex-premies, other former followers, as well as links to all the published articles (including Macgregor's) that mention ex-premies and Ex-Premie.org.  Actually, links to Elan Vital opens that door, because of its faqs about ex-premies. Cynthia Gracie Sylviecyn 22:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As you will remember Cynthia the latest verifiable estimate of Rawat followers is in the 1998 edition of "Religions of the World: A Latter-day Saint View" which estimated a general membership of appox. 1.2 mil. worldwide. No scholars consider "ex-premies" significant enough to count. But if, for the sake of this exercise, we allow for Original Research to estimate that there are 100 people currently posting on the ex-premie forum that is still only .01% of of people actively practicing knowledge, an insigificant minority. And a mention in Cagan's book doesn't change that fact.Momento 23:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I remember that the 1998 edition didn't update its figures from Divine Light Mission's 1980 membership estimates which were the 1.2 million worldwide, but more specifically it stated 50,000 premies in the U.s. If there were 50,000 practicing premies in the U.S. in 1998 I'll eat my snow boots.  Those are not 1998 figures and you know it. But, I suppose that's moot since Elan Vital, TPRF, and Prem Rawat isn't a religion (even though EV is a registered church in the U.S.) and claims on it's own faqs that it has no membership because there's nothing to join.  You fudged the numbers by using an outdated source. Sylviecyn 04:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=114172 Los Angeles, December 18, 2003 - Prem Rawat, known also as Maharaji, just concluded a 16-city tour of the Indian subcontinent during which more than 900,000 people sought his inspiration and guidance.

Between October 29 and December 10, he held events in 11 locations. 200,000 attended the event in Varanasi and 150,000 in Kanpur. More than 50,000 came to hear him in Faridabad, Agra, Ambela, Delhi, Koto, Jaipur, and Lucknow.

At the end of the tour, people interested in Knowledge, a practical way that Maharaji offers for finding peace within, participated in a countrywide interactive follow-up event where they were able to ask him questions. More than 600,000 participated from 1,116 centers equipped with satellite dishes. They interacted with Maharaji via audio feeds, and Maharaji responded via satellite video feed from Delhi, where the event originated before 28,000 people. 1,125 questions were sent in from 59 locations during an enthusiastic exchange that lasted more than 90 minutes.

-- http://tprf.org/Prem_Rawat_press_releases/Prem_Rawat_message_banner_year.htm In November, nearly a half million people in India had the opportunity to hear him, as he toured many rural towns and villages for the first time. Following that, more than 70,000 people from 45 countries attended an event on the outskirts of Delhi.

-- http://tprf.org/Prem_Rawat_press_releases/Prem_Rawat_record_new_students.htm London, December 8, 2004 —This year is proving to be a banner year for Prem Rawat, also known as Maharaji. As his message reaches more people than ever before via television, internet, and radio, the number of people learning his techniques for finding peace within is growing significantly.

This is the first year where the number of people learning his techniques for finding peace within—called Knowledge—has exceeded 50,000. The number of people learning Prem Rawat’s techniques of Knowledge has grown by 270% in the last four years and by 52% since last year, outside of India.

Maria C


 * Maria, with respect to your comments below, these citations are not reliable sources, and cannot be used in Wikipedia. As you noted, "Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used.".  These are all self-published material.  I hope this helps you see the difference between self-published and third-party sources. Mael-Num 00:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarifications
Some clarifications: (a) We have not used, and we cannot use Cagan's book to describe third parties (such as the group of detractors), if the book is considered a vanity publication (See: WP:SELFPUB; (b) there is no description from Elan Vital in the article about that group of detractors that can substantiate a mention of other material that is not reported in reliable sources; and (c) It is misleading to say the website of "former followers", when it is actually the website of a group of "critical ex-followers", that is in Wikipedia parlance an "attack site" and as such its use as a source for biographies of living people is deprecated. Only criticism that is sourced to reliable sources is welcome in such articles, and that is what we have done so far here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

See also WP:BLP that advises in no ambiguous terms that (highlighted as in the policy): "Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject. Self-published sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception." The detractor's website obviously falls within the category of self-published websites, and thus cannot be used in this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In part, I think Jossi may be correct about some of the information on ex-premie.org. It appears that a good amount of the information there may be self-published.  This sort of information is, in all likelihood, not a reliable source for Wikipedia.


 * However, there are other sections, such as their "press room", that is nothing but information that has been published in other sources, most of which are newspapers or other journals with their own editorial oversight. I cannot imagine that these are unreliable sources.  However, in the case of these articles, wouldn't it be best to cite the actual publication rather than ex-premie?  Perhaps the citation should describe the original journal of publication, and for ease of use, we should use the ex-premie database if no other online source is available?  The goal should be to make citations as easy as possible to verify. Mael-Num 03:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We are already referring to media articles in the article (we are using as sources time Magazine articles, Rolling Stone magazine and others, and additional mainstream media articles that are pertinent to illustrate additional viewpoints can be certainly added. There is no need, however, to link to that site, as per policy. Attribution requires that we provide a source, but an on-line version of that source is not required. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The point of citation is to allow a reader to verify information himself. Ideally, we would be able to find these articles on a source like an internet archive.  However, if they are not available, I see no reason why we shouldn't allow readers the ease of access that an online source provides.  If the information is good enough to cite, it should be linked if possible.  Otherwise, it's just missing the point.  Mael-Num 04:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to link to a website that is not a reliable source for Wikipedia, in particular in a BLP. Media articles can be cited give pub date, and name of publication so that these can be verified. That is enough to comply with our content policies related to sourcing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. So let's be clear. Firstly some questions regarding ex-premie.org. I agree that it makes sense to link to material on that ex-premie site which is reliable (thank you Mael-Num, I appreciate your input). Is it not reason enough that that site is the ONLY place where this material is accessible? There is much relevant documentation that would inform the reader in more detail. For example there are scans of early Indian DLM books (that quoted scholar Geaves refers to but nobody could otherwise read without time-consuming research). So is it an issue that there is other, less reliable material and/or editorial commentary at this site? Can't relevant and reliable documents that are online anywhere be linked? In short, if Joe Blogs publishes a website where he uploads scans of DLM magazines and there is no commentary or opinion added - just the documents - would that be more acceptable in terms of Wiki Policy? Secondly </B>an important question about Cagan's book. Jossi, you say 'we cannot use Cagan's book to describe third parties (such as the group of detractors), if the book is considered a vanity publication'. My personal opinion about this is irrelevant. This book was not technically published by Rawat or his organisation. Exactly what evidence can you produce to support an argument that Cagan's book amounts to a vanity publication? PatW


 * First point, it's not just an issue of "less reliable material and/or editorial commentary", although that is more than enough to exclude it. It is also the bias that is created when some material is included and other is omitted and the site is only indirectly related to the article's subject. Second point, I don't think it is a vanity publication and I don't think Jossi said it was.Momento 20:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

1) So if there were a website where there were scans of DLM magazines and no commentary or opinion added - just the documents as a complete archive - would you accept that we could link to that resource? <BR> 2) OK so if it's not a vanity publication then, according to Jossi's 'clarification' above, we can use Cagan's book to describe third parties (such as the group of detractors). At least we've clarified that.PatW


 * I reject the notion that ex-premie.org is an "attack" or "hate" site. That little argument is trotted out by Scientologists to decry opposing viewpoints.  It doesn't hold much weight to the objective reader in that case, nor does it here.


 * Go to any of a number of sites on, let's say, ytmnd.com. Note the lack of meaningful content, and the defamatory imagery and wording.  There is arguably little or no constructive content to be found there.  Sites like this could certainly be considered attack sites (in fact, linking to this site from wikipedia is forbidden, possibly for this very reason).  Compare this to ex-premie.org, and the difference will be clear.  There is an effort to provide meaningful information to the reader.  Defamation isn't the objective, as it is commonly accepted that information cannot be defamatory if it is true, and one of the apparent goals of ex-premie.org is to present the truth.  I am not going to engage in a discussion as to the site's success in meeting their mission, as this isn't a forum for such discussion, but plainly the intent is fair.


 * PatW's note, that in some cases, ex-premie.org is the "ONLY place where [some reliable] material is accessible" is important. Once again, the goal of citation is to allow people to learn more about a subject for themselves.  Indeed, Wikipedia is a common starting point for many people who are new to a subject.  Given that it isn't clear that ex-premie.org is an attack site, and in any case the site contains online copies of reliable material for sourcing, one must reject Jossi and Momento's objections on these grounds for inclusion of the site as a source for valid information.  Mael-Num 21:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

<B>"Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used.Self-published sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs"</B> Maria C (66.98.250.69)
 * Hi Maria. We're not talking about that at all.  We're talking about material that's been published elsewhere, in third-party sources, like the things found on this page.  That doesn't fall under the header of "self-published". Mael-Num 23:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Maria, Jossi et al. If such published material as Mael-Num has indicated were published on an archive site that had no biased editorial comment would you consider that should be included as external links in BLP's?PatW


 * Under the section "External links" it says "Links normaly to be avoided" are "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band (Prem Rawat) has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band (Prem Rawat), and thus should be linked from the rock band's (Prem Rawat's) Wikipedia article. An alternative music site (EPO/PremieChat) run by (pro or anti) fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band (Prem Rawat), as the rock band (Prem Rawat) has only indirect connections with that site.

Therefore EPO and any site managed by EPO, or any independent Premie site shouldn't be linked.Momento 02:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Except it isn't a question of a "pro or anti" site; it is a repository of reliable articles published by third-party sources that contain information directly related to Rawat. It isn't a chat room.  Your comparison is invalid.  Mael-Num 08:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right about something, it isn't a question of pro or anti, it's a question of whether the site is "directly and symmetrically related". And it isn't. It doesn't matter what it contains or who put it there, it isn't "directly and symmetrically related". Momento 09:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I get it. Here's where your confusion is, and probably the example is a little to fault.  When they are talking about a "direct and symmetric" relationship, they mean that the site linked to should be about the subject, and not about a variety of things, including the subject.  So, to apply the example here, the subject is Prem Rawat, and sites linked to should be about Prem Rawat.  You shouldn't link to information that is about 100 different gurus, one of which is Prem Rawat.  And that's not what's being done here.
 * All of this is moot, anyway. That guideline applies to the external links section.  We're talking about citation, and the two are totally different things.  So, the answer is, yes we could link to them. Mael-Num 19:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Momento, if said 'alternative music site' (pro or anti) had some pages of the Rock Band's own published material that directly related to the article's subject that was no longer published elsewhere don't you agree it would be 'a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject'? I think Mael-Num's point is that the required 'symmetry' is established by virtue of the archived, officially sanctioned publications. Again Mael-Num is not suggesting links to the chat site which is on another server and domain (albeit part owned by www.ex-premie.org's owner). Does 'symmetrical' mean that the subject has to have 'officially sanctioned' the site? I take that as an example of just one (the most obvious) 'symmetrical' scenario. It may be helpful to refine our understanding of this matter if people try to answer or comment on my very specific, hypothetical question: If the subjects own published material were reproduced, unaltered in any way, on an archive site that had no biased editorial comment (whatsoever) and was not officially sanctioned by the subject, should then this material be included as external links in BLP's? PatW


 * The question of symmetry only arises when providing a general external link. This guideline is to give editors guidance in forming a set of links outside of a bibliography or citations.  Or in other words, is it proper to give a link straight to the front page of ex-premie in an External Links section?  I'm leaning towards "no", because as we've already explored, there are questions of symmetry and attribution and so forth.
 * But this is all non-sequitur. As I understand it, we're not even talking about that.  We're talking about linking to published articles that are archived on that site.  The question of symmetry is moot.  We're not giving an External Link, we're giving a citation.  In any case, the articles as far as I can tell are all about Rawat.  That's as perfect a symmetry as I can imagine.  And that's really the test.  Think about it.  By the standard Momento is trying to apply, we wouldn't be able to link to The New York Times because the Times isn't all about Rawat.  That's absurd.  If the article is about Rawat, that's all that counts.  It's also a bit flimsy to exclude links to the archived article based solely on the domain name.  The policies are meant to exclude based on content, not on the words in a URL. Mael-Num 21:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The answer to your very specific, hypothetical question is "No". In the example given at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, a link shouldn't be provided (irrespective of BLP). One reason being that it prevents unrelated/unsanctioned people from hijacking an article.Momento 10:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that your fellow editors are trying to hijack this article? Shouldn't you assume good faith? Mael-Num 21:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No M-N. What I'm suggested is what I wrote. And that is that the Wiki guideline "prevents unrelated/unsanctioned people from hijacking an article".Momento 02:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Who would those "unrealated/unsanctioned people" be Momento? Sylviecyn 12:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone who is not related to or sanctioned by the subject of the article.Momento 02:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Momento, It doesn't appear to say anything of the sort in the 'Links normally to be avoided' section. Besides, I wasn't remotely suggesting linking to a hijacked site. I am talking about a hypothetical independent site with non-copyright violating, directly related published materials. Nowhere in Wiki guidelines is the suggestion made that a link shouldn't be made IN CASE a site is hijacked sometime in the future. They simply say: "Sites that have been hijacked should not be linked" You've just made up that reason yourself haven't you?PatW


 * I made up the whole paragraph PatW. All my own words. And I didn't say anything about not linking to a site in case "a site is hijacked sometime in the future", I said one reason to limit linking "prevents unrelated/unsanctioned people from hijacking an article". For example a biographic article in Wiki has to conform to BLP, so in order to get around this Wiki policy, an unscroupulous editor creates a web site to promote their POV and then links it to the biographic article. The Wiki guideline on links prevents that by allowing only links that are "directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject". This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative music site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site.Momento 02:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to beat a dead horse, but that part about direct symmetry and such applies to an External Links section. We're talking about citation, and the two are totally different things. Mael-Num 04:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Futhermore, your analogy of the rock band to an alternative music site and Prem Rawat to ex-Premie is bogus. The point of the band:music site analogy is that a site which is about music in general doesn't have a direct or symmetrical relationship; the site presumably describes many bands and/or aspects of music not related to the hypothetical band in question.  A proper analogy from Rawat to an asymmetric website would be one that describes many spiritual leaders, or a number of meditative techniques.  As such a fictional website doesn't deal with Rawat exclusively, a link to the front page of such a website would be inappropriate. Mael-Num 04:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Framing the disputes
I would like to attempt to frame the disputes as it is becoming difficult to follow. As far as I can see there are three aspectes being actively discussed.
 * 1) Cagan's book as a source
 * 2) The use of additional sources
 * 3) The use of "convenience links" hosted on an otherwise unreliable site as per WP:BLP

I would not have much time during the next few days as I am traveling and in a much needed Wikibreak, so expect some delay in my answers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition to this there is: Mael-Num 19:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Mael-Num 19:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The inclusion of criticism of Rawat's affiliation with "manipulative cults".
 * 2) The charge that Rawat has been affiliated with "brainwashing" and "mind control"
 * That material is already in the article. The dispute is about its inclusion in the lead. See . ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Cagan's book as a source
As per the RfC above, three non-involved editors have expressed an opinion that there is no reason to dismiss the book as a source on the basis of it being the first book published by a new publisher. The discussion about this source being a "vanity" piece or not, is moot, as that assertion is not verifiable. As with all sources, we need to make best efforts to put the source in context of what is being specifically cited. A source may be acceptable for a specific citation, and not acceptable for others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * opinions about sources do not have to be verifiable. Only the contents in the article has to be verifiable. Andries 17:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to the RfC above, I think the most significant rebuttal of Cagan as a source came from Revera. This diff shows that rebuttal.  I would like to point out, first, that his response came some time after Jpgordon's and Jayjg's, so one cannot assume that their responses would take into account Revera's.  In short, Revera's point is that one cannot be sure that Cagan's book isn't a vanity publication.  Being unable to know this one way or another, what is to be done?  Assume the author's being honest?  Reject the book and err on the side of safety?
 * The policy for addressing these is given by Jossi below. In WP:SPS, we see that one of the criteria is that "the article (in this case, Cagan's book) is primarily based on reliable sources independent of the subject of the article".  I haven't read this book (my public library system doesn't even have it yet), so I cannot answer this question.  But for others who can answer, the test is whether Cagan cites her sources.  Just as the test for a good Wikipedia article is if we can back ourselves up with reliable sources, so too is this the test for a questionable, possible "vanity" publication.  Does she give footnotes?  A bibliography?  If you can find adequate citation to reliable third-party publications that can be used to check out her claims, then I think those claims are fine.  If not, then we reject them as unreliable self-promotion.  It really is that simple. Mael-Num 20:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Most books do not carry citations, and by not carrying citations they are not dismissed as sources. In this case, as this is a substantial book on the life of the subject of this article, there is no reason to dismiss the current citations from it, as per the quite unambiguous response to the RfC that you have so quickly dismissed. If there are any specific concerns abut a specific citation from that book that we have used, let's discuss it, rather that either accept the whole book as a source (which it would be not possible), or disregard the whole book as a source on the basis of editor's speculations. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The absence of notes should be a factor in assessing the reliability of a source, I think. Just like the fact that the publisher has published one book. Andries 21:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That "fact" has been dismissed in the RfC responses, Andries. As for the lack of footnotes as the basis for dismissing a source, I would say that this is the first time I have heard such argument in Wikiepdia. If this idea of yours applied, we would lose thousands of sources from this an other articles. If you want to propose such change, please discuss at WP:ATT/FAQ where there is an active discussion related to sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't need to discuss this there, because WP:SPS is pretty explicitly worded. Making fallacious arguments that Wikipedia will rapidly fall into disarry down a slippery slope of attribution or an Argument from Ignorance that, because you've never heard of this argument, it cannot be true don't mean a whole lot.  Like I said, the wording is clear.  Wikipedia isn't going to fall apart because it isn't built on poorly-sourced vanity press publications.  Let's not start now. Mael-Num 23:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * May be I misremember, but the RFC was far stronger worded. Dismissing a source only on the basis that the source was the only book published by a company was rejected. But taking this into account as a factor in assessing reliabiltiy, no, I do not think that this was rejected in the RFC. Andries 22:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hold on there. Most books do carry citations.  At least the nonfiction books I read.  If you want to include this (possible vanity press item) as a reliable source, as you said yourself below, that source needs to pass the benchmarks for quality of a source laid out in WP:SPS.  That is, we need to be able to verify that book's claims in a third-party source.  The easiest way to do this is by using the book's citations, but I don't think it's the only way.  You can research these claims independently, but like I said, that's going to be less easily done.  Mael-Num 23:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that you misapplying WP:SPS. There is no such need to verify claims in third-party sources, unless the source is a vanity publication. The RfC respondents addressed the issue quite clearly. Please re-read it, if you could, in particular the third editor that specifically addressed Revera's argument: "The press presents themselves as a serious non-fiction press. I think, in absence of evidence to the contrary, that this means editorial fact-checking is taking place, particularly for biographies". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I find these loose and encompassing interpretations of the responses to that RfC highly questionable. I already noted that the two respondants to whom you refer made comment before Revera had replied.  Therefore, they didn't address this specific point of Revera's (and mine).  I also wonder if these respondants had read the book, and were aware that there was (as I understand it) no citations or references given.  As I noted, most nonfiction that I have read does provide citations, and these respondants may very well have assumed (as I did at first) that this "serious non-fiction press" would hold to that same standard.  In any case, their responses do not address these concerns raised by Revera and mine.  Furthermore, consensus (of an RfC or otherwise) does not mean we waive the standards of good fact checking and verification.  A nonfiction source should cite its sources, just as we do.  That's what helps make it reliable.  Mael-Num 00:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Assessing reliability as per the RfC, took into account the pedigree of Andrea Cagan as a best seller author, and the previous publishing houses that published her work. In any case, lacking evidence to the contrary, and providing that the material cited (such as the names of PR children, the fact that Geaves was one of the first Westerners that meet PR in India, etc,) is not disputed by other sources, it is OK to cite these as facts. When and if we wanted to use aspects about which there were disputed, and sources disagree (as in the case of the name Durga), we bridged that by attributing that info as an opinion rather than a fact. NPOV and ATT editing 101, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The standard for including information should not be whether a given fact in Cagan's book has not been refuted elsewhere, but that it can be confirmed elsewhere. Logically, an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so a lack of refutation is not the same thing as confirmation.  If you can verify the info elsewhere (I'm sure you can find roughly half a jillion sources that give Rawat's childrens' names, for example), then go ahead and give it and feel free to cite Cagan (as her book will likely become very easy for readers to find on their own, and it's easier on the reader to have them track down one source to verify where possible; one-stop shopping and all that).  But there should be no substitute for confirmation; that's just sloppy. Mael-Num 00:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that you give a distorted view of the RFC. The exact wording of the RFC was "Should a biographical book by Andrea Cagan be considered an unreliable source on the basis that the publisher is a small publisher and has published only one book? (The book was published Jan 2007, and is available at Amazon.com" Andries 23:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. We could ask the respondents to comment further, but the third opinion was quite extensive in responding to some of your concerns. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You know that an RfC on "can a book that does not cite sources or uses footnotes be considered unreliable because of that", will have a very clear response, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, it is a factor to be considered. Reliable sources are not black and white matters. Andries 00:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Therefore, I would suggest you give as much information as possible regarding the book (who owns the publishing house, how many other books they have produced, Cagan's previous publishing record) so as not to present the question in a vaccuum.  Slanted questions tend to attract slanted answers. Mael-Num 00:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Quick questions: have you read the book? Are any of the citations from that book currently in the article about which you have a concern? Or is it something else? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't yet. I've looked for it, but my public library system doesn't have it anywhere so I can't even reserve a copy for myself.  I look for it about once a week though, so when they get a copy I will read it.  You and Momento say it's important to read, so I'm going to keep trying.  So, in response to your other question, no there's nothing specific I have an objection to.  I'm just trying to give as balanced an interpretation of the rules as written as I can.  Mael-Num 01:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The use of additional sources
Some editors have asked about additional sources for this article. Any sources that can improve the article are welcome, providing that these are compliant with WP policies. Asking for a blanket approval of a number sources, is not doable, as each source needs to be assessed in the context on the edit being proposed. Bring a new a source, discuss it, etc, as we have done quite successfully at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars.

As it relates to self-published sources, and in response to Maria C and Mael conversation above, note that self-published sources are acceptable if published by the subject of the article, within the caveats and limitations explained in WP:SELFPUB. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's true. Some of the more important ones to point out are that the publication "is not contentious", "is not unduly self-serving", "does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject", and "is primarily based on reliable sources independent of the subject of the [publication]".  Again, as you pointed out, it's best to take these things on a case-by-case basis, but these guidelines should give us a good idea of what will pass muster, and what will not. Mael-Num 20:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The use of convenience links
There is no such a need to link to copies of articles hosted on a site that is considered unreliable by WP as a source. Any material that has been published and that it is verifiable, can be cited by providing publication name, date, and page and that would be sufficient to validate for WP:ATT. In any case, most newspapers and magazines have online archives that can be used if deemed necessary to provide a convenience link. Note that such use of "convenience links" may be an attempt to direct traffic to a particular site, that otherwise is deemed to violate Wikipedia guidelines regarding external links in BLPs. In any case, let's avoid making generic comments about "goups of sources". Have a specific source in mind that could help illustrate an aspect in this biography that is missing? Great, let's discuss it one at a time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree and disagree with Jossi on some of his points. I agree that if a source is deemed unreliable, obviously we should not use it.  However, in the context of the press links section of ex-premie.org, I do not think this exclusion applies.  At least not on the whole.  So, again I am inclined to agree with Jossi that we should take this on a case-by-case basis.  For example, an article from Newsweek is probably a pretty reliable source, and shouldn't be excluded.  An article from Penthouse may not live up to the same editorial standards (or it may, if it is corroborating evidence that can also be verified elsewhere, just trying to illustrate a point here...Penhouse isn't known foremost for its investigative journalism!).
 * As far as whether we should link to outside sources, I think this is a no-brainer. The goal is to give as much information to the reader as possible so that the reader can verify information for himself in the most convenient fashion possible.  In fact that is the guideline we are to live by according to Embedded_citations: "[Entries] should include as much information as possible about the source!"  We're supposed to give everything we can to the reader so they can research on their own, including online sources where possible.  And given that Jossi and I have both noted that we shouldn't give a blanket dismissal of any source, I don't see how this is an issue.  What I do see as an issue is obscuring information from the reader and only doing what is "required".  Have you ever tried to get a copy of "The Isle of Wight County Press"?  I haven't, but I'm willing to bet that if you don't live on the Isle of Wight, or at least very nearby, it's probably going to be a hassle.  Even if your local library does have access to a given publication, have you ever tried to use microfilm?  I have.  It sucks.  The internet beats microfilm any day of the week.  In my opinion, it's vastly better to give readers easy access to information, rather than ask them to take a copy of our bibliography down to their local library, find a microfilm reel, spool it into a reader, and flip through a couple of hundred thousand words to find what they need.  Clicking a link instead is the way to go. Mael-Num 20:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree. Sources that are collated in websites that have an agenda, usually are selected to support that agenda. If a source is deemed incompatible with the policy of WP:BLP, we should not use it. Not as sources for the article, not as external links, and not as convenience links. Let's find these sources in their publications archives if we must. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make sense. Every website has an "agenda".  Just click on any given site's "about us" or "who we are" or other mission-statement pages to see what I mean.  Just because you disagree with this particular website's "agenda", it doesn't invalidate what otherwise is completely acceptable under WP:ATT.  We don't editorialize based on someone's personal beliefs, we judge content.  Wikipedia is a collection of information, not a collection of information that you like. Mael-Num 23:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, you are not addressing my argument: (a) if there is a source that an editor wants to use in the article, sure. No problems. We can cite it, and for verifiability provide name, tile, page, date, etc. If a convenience link is available in a website that a priori is not acceptable as per WP:BLP, then we don't link to it, otherwise we are violating the policy. As I said before, rather than go on and on about this, let's see what source you want to use, and where, and we can discuss sourcing and convenience links on a case-by-case basis. I have access to several media archives online, and I am sure I can find most, if not all convenience links for related sources, providing that these sources are reputable publications, that is. And I fully agree with you, Wikipedia is a collection of information, within specific boundaries as presented in our content policies, and it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. See WP:NOT. Such discrimination is what defines Wikipedia: not only what gets included, but even more, what gets excluded. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am missing part of your argument, and so I'm not addressing it properly. What part of WP:BLP is not acceptable?  I didn't think we dismissed websites out of hand, unless they're extremely inappropriate (like the YTMND site I gave as an example yesterday).  I don't see this site as inappropriate in the same fashion.  Mael-Num 00:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Manipulative Cults
This information was reported by The Washington Post, reporting on a US Congressional Panel that found DLM to be a "manipulative cult". The phrase has been picked up by Time, The Rocky Mountain News, and others. This information takes up a full subsection of the article. I feel that it is important to give, at least a passing reference to the determination of Congress and the reports of these many journals. The wording I had used previously was very brief, so as to appraise the reader of them, but not to dwell or give undue weight. "Rawat's affiliate organizations have been described as 'manipulative cults'" in the brief paragraph on criticisms, or something of the sort. Here's a diff to what I had done in the past. Mael-Num 19:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Mind Control
As above, the charges of mind control and brainwashing put forth by their respective sources should be cited to put Rawat into a proper context for the reader who is only able to take the time to read the lead. Information about a subject shouldn't be buried 20 paragraphs deep into an article. Mael-Num 19:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Counter-arguments
Let's look at other long established biographies in Wikipedia, to see how criticism of these people has been summarized in the in the lead, if at all:
 * Mother_Teresa, that had some notable critics. No indication of the criticism in the lead as per WP:NPOV
 * Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama, a section of criticism in the article, not in the lead as per Undue weight as well as per WP:BLP
 * There are many other articles about people that attracted quite substantial criticism such Osho, Sun_Myung_Moon, Carlos_Castaneda, Andrew Cohen, and others, in which criticism is available in the article but not in the lead. Just browse Category:Living people for many more examples.

My understanding of the guideline of WP:LS (note that it is a guideline and not official policy) is that yes, we ought to describe the notable controversies in the lead, and I believe we have done that already by describing the family rift that was widely reported, and adding the assessment for some scholars that found PR's message to be be "intellectual unremarkable".

As for the panel that asserted 27 years ago that "Guru Maharaj Ji's Divine Light Mission" was a cult that "employs manipulative techniques and turn children against their parents." That may be useful information, in the context of the anti-cult movement that was strong in the late 70's and early 80's, and it is already included in the article. But is not needed in the lead, and misleading without its context. The "brainwashing and mind control" allegations as per Lewis' source, says verbatim that "A number os ex-members became critics of the movement, attacking it with charges of brainwashing and mind control". As such, these are not representative of a "notable controversy" either, and undeserving of a prominent citation in the lead. That is why WP:LS advises us that "Small details that appear in the full article should be avoided in favor of a very brief overview of the article." That is why, the fact that the Time's article "The Lure of the Cult" from 1997 speaks about "the modern era of cultism" of the 1970s, and furthers describes that "out of the rubble of the contercultures came such groups as Children of God, The Divine Light Mission, est", etc., does not warrant such a characterization the lead, but may be useful information in the specific section about the 70's or in the criticisms section.

My assessment is that the current lead is a bit too long, and could do with some further trimming, if at all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You may be correct about trimming the lead further, though to be sure a lot of good work has already happened toward this end. I personally think that the lead has become more 'taut' in the time that I've been here to see it progress, and that deserves some credit.
 * But the size of this article's lead is part of my counterargument. Or more specifically, the amount of detail contained in it.  I had actually looked at some of those biographies before you mentioned them.  One thing I immediately noticed about your examples is, as you noted, their leads are much briefer than this one.  The article on Mother Theresa barely has a lead "section"; it's a couple of sentences.  As our lead gives much more information about the subject than these, so too should it give some information about the subject's cotroversies and criticisms.
 * To be sure, there are a number of articles that do include criticisms of the subject. Richard Nixon's article mentions Watergate.  Jimmy Carter's article makes mention of the Iran Hostage Crisis, what many historians consider to be the failing that led to the election of Ronald Reagan, whose article mentions his status as "The Teflon President", a reference to the many scandals associated with his term as President.  One such scandal was the Iran-Contra affair, and Oliver North's biography notes his part in this event.  The current President of the United States George W. Bush has a biography that makes mention of the criticisms that have been raised during his time in office.
 * These are just a small number of examples, but I would like to point out that the leads to these articles give more detail of the subject than many (or perhaps all) of the articles you mentioned. So, as far as Wikipedia standards are concerned, it is indeed proper to cite criticisms and/or controversies surrounding the subject in a detailed lead, and clearly this is not necessarily undue weight.  I will agree, there is some inconsistancy between the articles I'm mentioning and the ones you are, but frankly I'm not concerned with those articles, I am working on this one at the moment (and boy, is it time-consuming).  I want to help make this article better, though some of those leads may need to be "fleshed out" a bit. Mael-Num 23:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:LS advises hat the lead "should be between one and four paragraphs long", and that it should describe notable controversies, not specifically "criticism". Big difference, IMO. I believe we have done that in the current version. Please re-read my counter argument, as I believe you have not addressed it substantially: I provided examples of biographies that may be relevant, while your examples are about very notable controversies related to political figures such as the Iran-contra scandal, and the hugely controversy surrounding the war in Iraq in the George W. Bush bio. So, sure, any notable controversy could be presented in the lead, which we have done, but your proposed additions to the lead are neither "notable controversies", nor notable criticism, and that's the argument. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to Mr. Rawat, I believe the reason why these "notable controversies" are so "notable" is because the people involved in them are significantly more notable than the subject here. I think almost everyone on the planet knows who George W. Bush is.  I'd dare say everyone who's over the age of 30 and/or is familiar with the western world and politics is aware of who Ronald Reagan was.  I know that I had no idea who Prem Rawat was until I read this Wikipedia article.  I don't think many people in the world know who Prem Rawat is.  Those who do know who he is are more likely than not aware of these criticisms of him.  His critics are named in many sources on him including the Elan Vital website, his recent biography (from what I understand), and this article.  Therefore, it is logical to conclude that familiarity with the subject coincides with knowledge of these charges.  Similarly, because this controversy is notable with respect to the subject, so too should it be at least mentioned in the lead. Mael-Num 23:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So, I do not understand. First you made claims about the need to add that info to the lead based on specific arguments that have been dully refuted. Now, you come up with a new argument, based on a personal opinion and some specific logic of your own. The readers have available a full-featured article that is meticulously annotated, and those that want to learn about the subject, can do so. The lead needs to provide a summary of the article and we are using the guidance of WP:LS. We are not using Elan Vital's very negative descriptions of these critics, as that is not allowed as per WP:SELFPUB (making claims about third parties), and we have not used Cagan's descriptions of these critics in the article yet, so the argument is moot. We have used third party sources to describe these critics in the appropriate sections of the article already. That's about it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know what's not to understand. I gave an argument, you rebutted my argument with some counterexamples, and I offered up more examples which supported my view.  You complained that my examples weren't analogous to yours because the involved controversies were better-known, and I replied that the controversies were better-known because the subjects were better-known.
 * In any case, the point isn't the fame of the subject, it's the style of the article. Your complaint as to fame is therefore irrelevant.  As can be seen from my examples, in articles where the lead is quite detailed, and controversy is linked to the subject, these controversies are described in the lead.  This style is expressed in WP:LS.  The fact that the criticism exists elsewhere in the article is further evidence that it should be included in the lead on two counts.  The first is that, obviously, if the criticism is in the article, it is notable.  The second is that lead sections are supposed to summarize the body of the article.  This isn't rocket science, just follow the instructions for how to write an article.  It's pretty damn simple, really.  Mael-Num 00:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Clearly we are disagreeing and we have not found common ground to move forward. My arguments stands: There is no need to have in the lead material that is not a notable controversy, and all the notable controversy is already there. So, let's hear arguments from other editors, and if there is no consensus on how to proceed, we shall ask for third opinions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Took the words out of my mouth. I think we've represented our respective arguments well.  I definitely want to hear more from other people before we change this in the lead (...or not!). Mael-Num 00:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

One definition of controversy is" a matter of opinion over which parties actively disagree, argue, or debate", has Rawat "actively disagreed, argued, or debated" with his critics? I don't think so. And the emphasis on "wrangle, strife and quarrel", can you find Rawat engaged in any of these? And as for "brainwashing and mind control", James Lewis writing that "a number of ex-members became critics of the movement, attacking it with charges of brainwashing and mind control", doesn't make a controversy. The "brainwashing and mind control" comment is one line in the scholars section of 211 lines. It represents less than .5% of the scholars section. And it is not even a comment by a scholar! I think we need to be careful that we don't accidently insert our POV.Momento 03:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, you don't like "brainwashing and mind control". What about the subsection that includes descriptions from the likes of the US Congress via The Washington Post that Rawat is affiliated with "manipulative cults"?  Can we say that?  Mael-Num 04:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not about what I like or dislike, Mael. As for your question, I have already addressed that in my arguments above (third paragraph from top of this section.) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's about proportion. The guidelines for Wiki Lead Sections says - "The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article".

The amount of criticism of Rawat noted by scholars is a small proportion of the scholars section, which is in turn a small proportion of the whole article. The same goes for The Washington Post comment. One sentence in a 1980 article is certainly not a "notable controversy". And the only mention of Criticism iin the Wiki Lead Section guidelines refers to "When writing a lead section about ideas and concepts. And there it says "include criticism if there has been significant, notable criticism". Momento 05:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If this article was accurate about proportions, then the weight of criticism would be far larger than that of praise. The fact is that the reason Prem Rawat is notable is because of his notoriety during the early part of his life and especially the first ten years of his career as a guru in the west, particularly the U.S. because that's where he chose to live.  Otherwise, he can't even be considered a famous person.  A real biography is about a person's entire life, not just the last five or ten years. The fact is that the vast majority of mainstream media coverage of Prem Rawat has been negative and critical throughout his life.  No amount of ommissions within this article and in Rawat's movement, of that criticism can be wiped out by poo-pooing that the criticism happened twenty years ago.  Sylviecyn 12:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay...so, more criticism? Maybe split the difference?  What would you recommend be said in the introduction? Mael-Num 22:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Once upon a time this article was based on people's POV and OR and was the subject of frequent edits wars as editors traded their POV in the article itself. Now, after a lot of effort by many editors and it is written in accord with Wiki guidelines that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize other material, usually primary source material. These are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce". Rawat has been studied by religious scholars and their informed opinion is included in this article.Momento 23:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It is the other way around. The introduction is too weighted to the negative. I have fixed that. Maria


 * Maria, I have removed your addition from the lead section. Please read WP:LS many editors have spent a lot of time to reduce the lead section to the recommended four para maximum and to follow Wiki guideliines. And please discuss major edits before doing them. Thanks.Momento 23:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Once again the lead section has become POV'd. The inclusion of criticism is way out of proportion to its presence in the article and the honours paragraph is even worse. If the lead was to follow WP:LS, the lead section should be a microcosm of the article. And that in a biography is, largely, the events that have taken place over the life of the subject. The first three paragraphs, up to "executive jets" is OK and covers Rawat from birth to the 80s/9's but after that it wanders off to pro and negative and then a section on TPRF which is, again, way out of proportion to its importance. The fourth and final paragraph should take us from the 80s/90s to the present activities of Rawat and round off the lead. I am going to give it some thought. In the meantime I am going to remove the little pro and con edit war. Momento 01:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the lead is much improved since the first time I started reading this page, and also agree that the final paragraph stands out as lesser in quality. I think you should try to give it some effort.
 * I'm not interested in adding back the criticism, because I don't want to edit war. But please remember that the paragraph that did exist in the lead was re-added by Jossi from a fairly stable version that had existed for several months.  If the wording of the criticism seems poor to you, then could you try to add the content of it in your attempted rewrite? Mael-Num 18:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank M-N. I'm learning as I go.Momento 20:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The style of the article is important and should not be ‘slanted’ to avoid drawing attention to controversy or by detractors wanting to insert undue weight. All the criticism that is mentioned elsewhere should be summarised in the lead, without ‘weasely’ avoidance’. Period. So I would argue that all these criticisms/controversies (enough arguing over semantics) should be summarised, including the current ‘hate group’ activities which stand out as current and of note. Whilst PR may not have attracted much ‘notable controversy’ relative to more widely known public figures, in his life there have been, and are now (as exemplified by the public antagonism between ex-premie ‘hate group’ and him) controversies which have been notable to him and others. I think it is fallacious to suggest that because he has managed to keep these controversies so far fairly well out of the wider public perception, that they do not exist as strongly felt realities within his smaller sphere of influence. But then the publication of denigrations of the ‘hated’ hate-group in this new book etc. loudly confirms that this group is absolutely notable to the subject. <BR> I would say that someone who pushes out so much self-publicising material, and yet who also shuns media attention, can expect people to be particularly interested in whatever notable controversies exist around him, however small or suppressed. Isn't PR nowadays notable because his adverts and followers say he is and for little other reason? I don't see much evidence of media coverage that is really in-depth or uncontrolled by him in some way. That is apart from Cagan's book of course. Anyway, yes, the notable controversies of this relatively minor notable person are of course relatively small, but to him they are big enough to be described as notable, therefore they are notable in an article about him. Say for example a religious leader was accused of abusing followers in some way. If that leader acknowledged the public complaints of those followers it would be notable as a controversy despite the predictable efforts of the employer and his followers to brush off as insignificant the  ‘notability’ of the incident. So to a great extent I think what we see here is supporters, Momento, Jossi and Maria trying to play down the notability of something that to impartial people would appear to seem quite notable and interesting. Conversely I think what Mael-Num and I are arguing is notable, is more in line with what most neutral people (if they could be inspired to participate here) would say. I believe that Momento’s straw man arguments about the definition of controversy (and other words) should be discounted as such within this debate. Just because PR refuses to argue or engage with his critics directly does not somehow invalidate or disprove the controversies about him that are going on. He remains publicly challenged and invited to respond to the ex-premies more serious charges (and sometimes actually quite innocuous and sincere-sounding questions). And the fact remains that he has responded, engaged indirectly, or maybe better put, ‘reacted’ quite aggressively via his organisation who publish attacks, and encourage other publishers to also denigrate those people, calling them a hate-group etc. This new Cagan book apparently even devotes quite a bit of copy to discrediting specific people who post on the ex-premie forums etc. That’s pretty fierce stuff, and I would say sufficient proof of notability. Another point Mael-Num raised (on my Talk Page) is that this article looks edited to give the impression that criticism and controversy is largely a thing of the past- more specifically the seventies. That is of course untrue. I explained to him that now, for the first time in the West, disgruntled ex-followers have organised themselves into a small, quite loose, but nevertheless demonstrably active group which proclaims it is challenging PR to account for all kinds of controversial things he said or did or instructed others to do to them. This currently active group have caused him enough concern to respond as I’ve pointed out. I rest my case that the ex-premies should be mentioned in the lead as they are his very own controversy...one that is unquestionably notable to him and of interest to readers. One simple measure of the neutrality of this article would be to take stock of the judgements of truly neutral persons who have commented here. Mael-Num is a singular example of such a person, having had no prior knowledge of PR. The fact remains that he has rather implied that he felt this article was imbalanced. I would suggest that rather than rely on the endless arguments put forth by we who are plainly biased, it would be best to submit to some degree to the arguments of fresh, clearer heads. It’s all very fine endlessly arguing and periodically inviting impartial people to mediate. What does it say about us if we dismiss so quickly the serious arguments of those whom we invite to mediate? Finally I would add that I am refraining from much editing for two reasons 1) time, and more importantly 2) I see it as very important for the neutrality of this article for neutral people to actually take it over if that is ever possible. I see it as almost impossible for neutrality and balance to happen whilst affiliated people people edit so inflexibly. I would like to see PR's achievements and controversies reported here honestly and in a balanced way. The last thing I want is for this article to go to either extreme of undue praise or denigration. In the absence of a Wiki judge I strongly suggest we heed Mael-Num and try and get more people like him on board.PatW


 * I respectfully disagree with your assessment. The criticism that has been reported in reliable sources is detailed in the article by the provision of sources, as provided by numerous editors over the last two and a half years.


 * As you well know, the "ex-premie" group, as you call it yourself, has not attracted attention and has not be reported in such sources, besides what is already included in the article. This is the way Wikipedia works: we report what reliable sources have published on a subject. We do not engage in speculation, or in original research.


 * Your opinion of "what is interested to readers" is based on the presumption that this "ex-premie group" is notable enough to warrant their mention. If that is the case, we can only assert that notability by means of providing secondary reliable sources in which the views of this group are described. So far, and for all the noise raised, no such sources have been forthcoming simply because these do not exist.


 * The fact that the Elan Vital website refers to a groups of detractors as a hate group, cannot be included in this article based on Elan Vital's being a primary self-published source, and as such, can only be used to describe views about itself, but not about third-parties. Cagan's book also mention a group of detractors, but we have not used that material in the article as yet. I would warn you, Pat, that if we include that material, that in itself would not be grounds for including that group's viewpoints, for the same reasons as explained above: there are no reliable, published sources that describe the views of that group.


 * I have been editing Wikipedia for almost three years and have mediated more than one content dispute, and I can assure you that based on my experience, this article is not only well balanced, but better sourced and annotated than many biographies, due to the hard work of many editors that have contributed to it over the years. If there are specific areas of the article about which there are concerns, then, let's hear them and address them one at a time. A blanket dismissal of the article on the basis of your arguments at the same time as stating that you are not interested in investing the necessary effort to fix what you believe is broken, is not the way this project works, and shows disregard for the combined effort of many editors that have worked in this article so far.


 * Is the article perfect? No article in Wikipedia is. Is there room for improving it? Sure. But we do this through a collaborative effort of these editors that care for this article and this encyclopedia.


 * On the specifics of the lead to the article, we are in the middle of discussions to address editors' concerns with a view to hopefully find some common ground. If such common ground is not found, then we will utilize Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as the RfC that we placed a few weeks ago, and any other steps that may be necessary. There is no such a thing as a "wiki judge" or other type of magic bullets, just check other articles about which there are strong POVs, such as Islamophobia, Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid, Pro-life, Ann Coulter, and many others. There is no magic bullet replacement for the editing process in these cases, nor is such in this case either.


 * If you want to edit without the need to abide by that process, you may want to edit other wiki-based encyclopedias such as Wikiinfo, in which you will be able to edit to your heart's content without the encumbrances of the content policies of Wikipedia and its processes. Mael, you and any other editor that want to contribute to make this or any other article better, within the framework provided by WP:NPOV, WP:ATT as well as with civility and respect, are most welcome to do so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with PatW as well. The Wki lead guidelines are absolutely clear and I'm not going to ignore them to follow PatW idea.Momento 06:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion to give more space to impartial editors was not actually intended as a slight on the existing accomplishments of editors. Jossi, you say Cagan's book also mention a group of detractors, but we have not used that material in the article as yet. That rather suggests you think we could use that material. As per your 'warning' I am not suggesting that the group's viewpoints are mentioned, although I remain unconvinced as to why on earth not. Yes I am suggesting that we use this material to describe the 'hate group' activities as as a notable controversy. For those that are interested in what this book actually says about the hate group here is a link to some discussion about it from the ex-premie forum which includes quotes. http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/posts/15504.html I suggest that those that don't have this book try and obtain a copy or check out some quotes like this. I will also do so.PatW 09:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Pat on the major issues and disagree with Jossi about not being able to address the hate-group allegation. The fact that ex-premies are called a "hate-group" by Prem Rawat via his organizaiton, Elan Vital, and again in Cagan's book deserves the right of response by ex-premies because it's such a polemic and unusual accusation.  Elan Vital and TPRF endorsed the book.  It's libel, in fact, but quite difficult to disprove because premies and Prem Rawat repeat the accusation so frequently.  In fact, Elan Vital and Prem Rawat is the only NRM that I been able to find that engages in calling detractors a "hate-group."  Also, as I stated before, ex-premies have been reported about in mainstream media within the past five years by reliable sources that cannot be considered original research.  I also disagree that this is a well-balanced article.  It reads like an advertorial or hagiography -- well-sourced scholars notwithstanding -- andit gives undue weight to Ron Geaves, who btw, did not disclose to his (scholar) peers his decades-long affiliation as a devotee of Prem Rawat.  Once again, what's notable about Prem Rawat is his notoriety in the press from his arrival to the west through the present.  Sylviecyn 15:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This encyclopedia is not about "right of response" (see WP:NOT), and you may have not understood my argument. If there are reliable sources that describe the viewpoints of that group of detractors, we can assess these sources and describe them if needed. I am concerned that both you and Pat may not aware of the negative unintended consequences of pushing for the use of Cagan's book in this regard, as the books paints a disastrously negative portrayal of your group, and you will be left with no way to rebut that portrayal because of the lack of sources. In past versions of this article we had a description of the views of this group by Elan Vital, which I deleted after a request made by PatW, and based on the understanding that a self-published site (such as the Elan Vital website) cannot be used to make claims about third-parties (see WP:SELFPUB).


 * One note of caution, though: I can perceive an attempt to frame this dispute upon a mistaken need for balance, that attempts to balance the points of view of proponents and detractors. That is not what WP:NPOV is about. This mistaken perception, shows up in may articles about which there are strong and opposing viewpoints in play, and unless that myth is dispelled, the results are usually very poor. A balanced biographical article is one that presents the significant viewpoints about a person as described in reputable published sources, and I believe that we have done that with this article. Is this the article I would have written myself? Absoultely not. Is this the article that a member of a group of detractors would write? Of course not. Can I "live" with this article as it is? Hardly, but I am committed to working with others and improve it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that Cagan mentioned someone in her book doesn't entitle that person to a mention in this article. There are dozens of people quoted and mentioned. According to the book the Arya Samaj group in India organised a riot to disrupt Rawat, does that mean the AS should have a paragraph in this article to expound their views? Certainly not. As far as this article is concerned the AS and the ex-premies are a non event.Momento 20:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You say: "As far as this article is concerned the AS and the ex-premies are a non event".
 * A non-event? What kind of neutral point of view (NPOV) is that - considering that all of Rawat's online sites (including Cagan's book) go to considerable lengths to place ex-premies in a negative frame of reference.
 * As for the Arya Samaj, I've long forgotten what their particular beef/concern with Rawat's father and his "Divine Light Mission" was, but it WAS historical fact, and on no account should historical fact be discounted in a Wikipedia article simply because the likes of you, Momento, would rather it was swept under the carpet.

Revera 16:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC) Would you mind giving an attempt at explaining why you think Arya Samaj's dispute with Prem Rawat should be ignored? History is history. If Wikipedia hopes to be seen as a reliable source, it should not be liable to the afflictions of apparent revisionists such as you, Momento.


 * Certainly Revera. Cagan's book is over 400 pages long, we can't put it all in. An encyclopedic article cannot include everything known or related to the subject. If people want to find out more about the subject they can look at the references and do further research.Momento 20:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion
Oh yes I think Cagan's mentioning it does entitle the group's mentioning (NB. it is not a singular 'person' as you suggest with yet another straw man argument). The ex-premie group represents the concerns of people who had literally dedicated their lives to Prem Rawat at his suggestion during the 70's. It is perfectly understandable and irrelevant that these people were a minority. They were a very important minority indeed. That is why your argument about how 'few' they were and are is irrelevant. Rawat SAID these people were his most treasured followers. I personally heard him say this in Rome. These people were encouraged by him to give all their money and time to serving him in the Ashrams he set up around the world. Rawat referred to these people his most dedicated servants. He even called them his 'arms and legs' or something of the sort. He told these young people that he was offering them the greatest, 'supremest' opportunity to 'surrender' their lives to him and he held many meetings to emphasise the importance he attached to his ashram scheme. The gist is that these idealistic young people have now grown up and some feel they deserve answers about their past involvement that they feel he is avoiding. They are way more connected to the article's subject than the separate group you are comparing them with. Also the article does not come close to adequately describing the huge effect that Rawat's pre-'Knowledge-Lite' more demanding tone had on people. Do you want to hide the fact that Rawat ran a very harsh regime of surrender which adversely effected some people's lives? Do you think that the fact that some of his closest followers are still holding him to account for his past is something not to mention? As you may know, in it's time the Arya Samaj incident was extremely notable because there was ongoing significant rioting, violence and injury when they clashed with DLM followers. Also their disagreements with DLM and other sects were of notable interest to scholars (see the book 'Rhadasoami Reality' by Mark Jurgensmeyer). I fail to see why groups that express and act on opposing views cannot be mentioned in passing or in more depth according to significance to the subject. Nobody is suggesting that undue weight be given to their views. I don't think you are crediting readers with the common sense they deserve. You seem to think that by representing Rawat as someone who is universally applauded and little decried that you've achieved a balanced article that will satisfy a free-thinking readership. ok BUT... Your attempts to omit information from the article make for an incomplete and contrived article that will not give the reader an opportunity to assess the merits of Prem Rawat based on a broader picture. You simply cry that anything that questions or disagrees with him is either 'a non event', untrue or of minimal note compared to Rawat's accolades. Again, Mael-Num made the highly relevant point that the ex-premie.org announces that the site tells the truth about Prem Rawat, and that is supported by there being a lot of facimiles of DLM publications that are hard to find elsewhere. Don't hide or brush information under the carpet. PatW 11:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh and Jossi. Let's all be vigilant not to pick and choose what are 'reputable published sources' to suit our agenda. As far as I can see there is no lack of reputable published sources but I sense a reluctance from you to include stuff from the Cagan book about detractors and yet a readiness to use it otherwise. Personally, I'm for using it (my personal opinion is that it's quite a flattering book but it's published, generally factual and correct so why not?) ...let it all be seen heard and understood! It's there..let's include it. I am all for MORE verifiable information not LESS. Also if her proclamation that the doors are now open for Rawat to move ahead in a big way, don't you think we are going to be increasingly spoiled for relevant published commentaries?!PatW


 * Hello Pat. Sure, there were some people that found it difficult when the ashrams were closed, but there were many others that did not. I lived in one of the ashrams for four years, memories of which I cherish till this day. Did some people found it difficult during that transition? Probably, and if we can find some authors that though of that to be a notable event and describe that transition in a source that is reliable, let's add it. No problems.


 * As for your second argument, I do not know if you recall, but up until a year ago we had a full article on the Past teachings of Prem Rawat, that explored these within the historical context of the 70's, but it was deemed to be non-encyclopedic, due to the lack of sources. You can see the version of that article before it was redirected, here.


 * Regarding the Arya Samaj, Cagan's book describes that in several pages. A few excerpts follows:

One such riot was in the works when Maharaji and his family arrived in Muzaffarpur in Bihar early in the morning. From the moment they arrived, it was clear they were not wanted — members of Arya Samaj had distributed posters all over the city, denouncing Maharaji and his teachings. (page 100) [...]When the event wasover, the Westerners stayed at Prem Nagar, where they celebrated Maharaji’s fourteenth birthday with him on December 10, 1971. A few weeks later, he attended an event in Patna, where he and his students were harassed once again, this time by both left- and right-wing militants — including the Arya Samaj and the Bengali Communists. These religious traditionalists were angry with Maharaji, just as they had been angry with his father. Now they had grown even more hostile since his success in the West. How could a group of Westerners suddenly invade their tradition? (page 172)"
 * "But several wild claims about Maharaji and Knowledge angered people of different religious beliefs. Contrary to what Maharaji had told people, his message was erroneously perceived as incompatible with traditional Hinduism and Sikhism. Perhaps, then, it was inevitable that a series of riots and disturbances would occur at Maharaji’s events during the years 1969–1971. More than once, Maharaji’s students had to defend themselves against violent attacks, and Maharaji and his family were sometimes forced to flee in cars to avoid angry mobs.


 * We could add some of that if needed, as well as cite Jurgensmeyer's Rhadasoami Reality, if useful. Note that Jurgensmeyer makes some notable mistakes, in particular confusing Swarupanand (Shri Hans' teacher) with Anand Swarup. Do you have a copy of David Lane's The Radhasoami Tradition, where Jurgensmeyer's article is included? I could check if I can find it in my local library if you don't.


 * I strongly disagree with your assertion that I simply cry that anything that questions or disagrees with him is either 'a non event', untrue or of minimal note compared to Rawat's accolades. As I said many times during these discussions, my interest is in having an informative article grounded on Wikipedia content policies. If there are specific areas in the article that you consider them to be not useful or lacking, please point them out and let work together to fix them.


 * As for information about detractors from Cagan's book, sure, we could add that information, if you wish. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In a book of over 400 pages, Cagan's critical view on "detractors" is about .01% of the book. Inserting that into this article would constitute undue weight.Momento 19:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jossi, my first argument was not so much about the notability of the troubles people had just 'transitioning' from PR's ashrams when he stopped them (although my guess is it's mentioned in Cagan's book in passing). Premies are keen to point out how Rawat did away with the ashrams, because it endorses the oft-cited contention that he was more a destroyer of Indian ideas and habits than an instigator of them. What is insinuated in the article(avoid weasel words and phrases) is that responsibility for the ashrams (amongst other things) lies with DLM not Rawat. In my view, an encyclopaedia should not be used as a means of spreading the political spin of any group, and this article leans towards insinuating that DLM was responsible for all the bad stuff. Rawat's part is played down in a weasely way at every turn. In fact Rawat's own printed speeches from the seventies belie the revisionist notion that he was not responsible for ashrams or even the actions of DLM. This is a main bone of contention with Rawat's detractors as you know. My point is that Rawat can be shown to have endorsed the ashram (and other things) personally. Although I do not intend to extrapolate on my personal experience of all this (no I did not have a problem 'transitioning' either, in fact I was glad to leave the ashram) my sense of integrity is affronted  by any suggestion that Rawat did not personally organise and instruct his 'initiators' at the time  (Peter Ponton, David Smith, Nick Seymour Jones etc.) to recruit people into ashrams. Point 2: There is quite a bit of commentary about how all this. such as: " in 1977 he embarked on a reassertion of his role as Guru, restating the importance of devotion to the 'teacher' in the Hindu Bhakti tradition. As part of this restatement of devotion, the ashram system was reinvigorated after a period of apparent decline; the restrictive life in an ashram was codified in the 'Ashram Manual' which required that members must 'observe a vow of poverty...personally possessing nothing'. All of Rawat's followers, even those with family commitments, were subject to stronger encouragement to enter the ashram system." from http://www.prem-rawat-maharaji.info/index.php?id=24 Also: http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/dlm_social_org.htm From http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/jwashram.htm there are extracts from a tape transcript of Rawat speaking in Atlantic City, New Jersey, in December, 1976. If a Wiki reader could access this information would there be any doubt as to Prem Rawat's endorsing the ashram lifestyle in 1977? Maybe you think this stuff should not be referenced here but my point is how else can the correct impression be given? Or have you become so cynical an editor that you are not concerned with representing truth? I want to persuade you to commit to making a more truthful article. I want you you to suggest ways that we can clarify, within Wiki parlance, the facts and remove the insinuation I've referred to, from the article. These are Rawat's words from this 1976 extract: ''"The ashram is for people who have dedicated their lives for their lifetime. When you understand that the purpose of your life is to understand knowledge and to devote your life to Maharaji, then ashram makes sense and is really required. Ashram is intensive care provided by Guru Maharaj Ji. Guru Maharaj Ji knows how to operate on us and he is the surgeon. See, you have a disease, and you have been given medicine for the disease, and that's good, which is knowledge. But we need intensive care to recover from the disease because we can fall back into the disease. And the ashram is Guru Maharaj Ji's hospital. Ashram is the place we all need to come from but some people can't be there because they are married." '' Later, Maharaji takes questions from premies. A premie asked Maharaji about whether it was okay for him to leave the ashram and "to have a wife," since he felt he needed one. To this, Maharaji says: "Do you need a wife, or does something else need a wife? A wife is not a human necessity. It is desire. It is just an extension of mind. Right now your mind is saying you want a wife, but if it's just a wife, why do you want the second thing, you say I want a child, and I want this and I want that. Somehow mind traps you at the weakest spot. That's the way mind taps into you. Do you want a wife, but this is really just an extension of mind.  Then another premie asks Maharaji about people who had moved out of the ashram and got married, which a number of ashram premies had done earlier in 1976, and he asked Maharaji what they should do. Here is what Rawat says: ''"This is what you should tell them. If you take a stick of dynamite, and stick it down your throat, and light the other end with the fuse, what's gonna happen? (laughing) Who would you blame that on? The point is, who's gotta pay for that? Look, they are married and it's ridiculous for them to get divorced. ...It was an irrational and wrong move to get married. It isn't the answer, knowledge is the answer. '' Maharaji proceeds to talk about marriages that 'aren't working' and how they are worse than hell. He continues: '' Whatever you sow, you reap it yourself and if it isn't working out, you are gonna reap that too....Service to Guru Maharaj Ji is personal self-dedication. Moving out of the ashram and getting married was a flip-flop move and it's a sad sight, why did they do that? Why, because it's an extension of mind."  Also from this page (http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/ashram.htm) there's a very revealing interview with Rawat at a 1975 Orlando Conference... he is asked if he personally wrote the actual Ashram Manual amongst other things: "I am not going to push a premie into an ashram. It's totally up to them. And as soon as they pass their standards to move into the ashram, we will see. It's not their choice to make. Besides the point that they make the choice to move into an ashram, there is also our choice to make if he passes our standards, who will let him move into an ashram. If you think you are ready for it, just apply for it. If you don't think you are ready, then don't apply for it. There is no question.'' Q: ''How closely should the ashrams be run by the book?  Ans: It's not the question how close they should stick to the book. The question is, 'Who wrote the good book'?  Q: You did.'' Ans: ''There is your answer. I dictated it and I sanctioned it, and if you are really a premie and a devotee who is dedicated and who is going to obey Agya, then you are going to follow the good book (read the Ashram Code). Otherwise you are not. '' (Maharaji - 1975 - Orlando Conference) Here's another interesting document (a facsimile of letter signed by Rawat aged about 17) where he urges his followers to considered him source of [agya] (master's orders) as opposed to other members of his family. Even here he plainly suggests that he is the singular personal 'One Source..to whom we have dedicated our lives'. These sort of things need to be accessible to people if they are to have the opportunity to go beyond the spin of this article. Otherwise the article should employ less weasel-words and phrases so as it doesn't lean towards a potentially embarrassing denial of the past. http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/1agya.htmPatW 12:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Now regarding Jurgensmeyer's book Radhasoami Reality. He never mistook Radhasoami guru 'Sarupanand' for the Advait Mat 'Sarupanand'. Where did you get that idea? (As a matter of fact I did when I first read the book being new to all this stuff.) David Lane (Jurgensmeyer's assistant) is clear about the distinction and reports that: "The Divine Light Mission was essentially a branch-off of the Shri Paramhans Advait Mat Group in Guna..... Sarupanand was Hansji's guru......Hansji was also apparently initiated by the late Sawan Singh of Radhasoami Satsang Beas. There is a book entitled Shri Paramhans Advait Mat published in India (Guna) and available at UCLA in Los Angeles, CA., which tells about their lineage....It is quite informative....." In fact that informative book is available in part on the internet only here: http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/ad.htm Interestly, in this book which is the official Advait Mat biography of Rawat's father's guru Saruapnanand, Rawat's father is never mentioned as an important Mahatma and furthermore on p 244 (http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/229-287.htm#anchor369845) the day is described when Sawupananand appoints someone quite different as his successor! Quite interesting isn't it? And all very informative background reading I'd of thought for anyone wanting to know all sides of the story.

Published scholarly comments from David Lane plus tons of well-sourced information about Rawat's lineage can be gleaned from these EXTREMELY informative resources at http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/cousins.htm and http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/lane.htm In fact if you want to brush up on all this, I suggest you read this section of the site. It will give you a massive insight into Rawat's roots. For your interest on page 207 of 'Radhasoami Reality'Jurgensmeyer reports: 'The teachings of the Divine Light Mission, led by the boy guru Maharaj-Ji, are essentially those of Radhasoami". If you want to learn of the similarities between these groups check this page which is full of quotes from Rahasoami Reality:   http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/rad.htm If you like I can give you a copy of this book as I have 3! Email me if you'd like it as a gift.PatW 12:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate, Pat, if you do not make statements such as "have you become so cynical an editor that you are not concerned with representing truth?". These comments are unhelpful, and poisons the possibility of having a civil conversation. Keep your arguments on topic and refrain from ad hominem arguments such as these.


 * As I said, before, Jurgensmeyer's viewpoints, including his statement about his assertion about the apparent relation to Radha Sohami can be included alongside all other scholars in the Shri_Hans_Ji_Maharaj article, as well as mentioned here if needed. I have read the Shri Paramhans Advait Mat book, and in fact, I have created several articles on the subject of Advait Mat. I do  not know why you are under the impression that I am against Jurgensmeyer/Lane material. I am not. I am also not interested as you may be implying, to assert a specific lineage or claims of lineage. The facts are that PR's father's succession was challenged, and that happened to PR himself, and that information is and can be presented in these articles. Please see Swarupanand in which both claims of lineage are explained, for example.  Note that other scholars assert a connection to Surat Shabd as well as Sant Mat, and these aspects are also covered in this and related articles. That is useful information, based on reliable sources and we have used these to describe the lineage/relation/similarities with other movements.


 * As for the ashrams issue, I am not sure that I understand what you are saying. This article mentions the ashrams based on what scholarly sources say about them, and that is what we do in Wikpedia articles. The commentary you provide is based on an anonymous source, and that is not usable as per policy. Do we need to add more material about the ashrams in this article? I am not opposed in principle, if we can find additional sources that describe the life in ashrams, or use more material of existing sources. FYI, Cagan's book describes the transition out of the ashram. We could use some material from there as well.


 * I thank you for your offer to gift me a book, but I already found a copy in my local library. And lastly, I would kindly request that you do not linkspam this page. Make your arguments and providing citations from the sources you propose to use, is a better use of this page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course we need to say more about the ashrams. You and I and any person who was around then know that Rawat spent from late 1976 until the early eighties advocating ashams to the hilt and what's more he published via DLM, loads of material that conveniently premie editors can't find suitable reference for. Why not? We're talking DLM publications, are these not permissable since DLM was Rawat's organisation? OK so you don't think these references are permissable but it seems there is some disagreement about this even from people as sure of themselves about Wiki policy as you- notably Mael-Num. So we need to really nail this. That section about the seventies totally omits description of what Rawat was demanding of his followers and the tone of his teaching during that period. In short it looks like a deliberate lie and there are quite a few people who think it is a cover-up that proves Rawat is cynical about the truth - which is rather ironic for someone who claims to be the fount of all wisdom. And my last argument was probably a too-lengthy attempt, NOT to linkspam or whatever you call it, but to illustrate my argument about what 's missing from this article. Despite all this correctness and so-called adherence to NPOV etc. that we aspire to, this article still is marred by insinuation and omissions that can only be tied to an advocate agenda. None of the stuff I've quoted and linked above, (to illustrate my point), is covered and yet it paints a different picture and importantly, it happened as clear as day is day. What I am saying is that Wikpedia articles start to look really contrary to the public interest when people bend over backwards to NOT seek out particular important truthful and public-interest material or who simply don't know the history (Momento? ), let alone go find resources to illustrate it. Reading the article again, it makes me quite cross to see how much good stuff 's been cut out over time and now you appear to be wriggling out of including. This article is so squeaky clean it's almost a great example of an advocate site. Since you apparently consider yourself sincere about this exercise I would ask why don't you look for some proper truthful references from DLM publications to make the important point that Rawat personally advocated ashrams to the point of actually personally writing the rule book? That is a clear ommision of very relevant information. Why hasn't that been done? Why do we have to fight all the time to just tell the truth? And rather than making an ad hominem attack on you, I was attempting to point out out that editors (not just you) who constantly dismiss contentious and yet obviously truthful material about a subject and argue about it not being properly sourced, and yet who always find material to support the subjects preferential PR image, could absolutely well be challenged as as to whether they are not being cynical about reporting the whole truth. I don't think I am in the least out of place to say that here.PatW 20:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Pat, As I said before, I am not against adding some more material about the ashrams. Your comments come across as prsonal accusations, and that is becoming quite tedious and repetitive. I have said many times already that any areas of the article that need work, can and should be improved if there is the willingness to put the necessary effort to do so. So, from my side I will endeavor to revise all sources quoted and find more references to the ashrams so that the relevant sections can be improved. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, I'll try to be clear. My 'tedious' 'repetitive accusations' are squarely aimed at whoever removed all the perfectly good material that existed a year or two ago that did describe Rawta's ashram activities and more. If that was not you please ignore my comments they were for some else to consider and accept my sincerest apology. I won't remove the comments because I would like whoever removed that stuff to consider my complaints.PatW


 * Pat: the removal was done by some editors (mainly User:Andries) after a failed article for deletion discussion and a further purging of material that was not supported by sources. Here is the article before its removal . ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting article here: http://www.rexblog.com/2007/01/24/16508/ Hypothetical question: if ex-premies commissioned a 'White Paper' (as per Jimmy Wales' advice to Microsoft)  would you accept that as a reliable source? Do you think this Wales advice has anything for us to consider as per the controversial information? <i>a dogma has developed on Wikipedia that suggests it is inappropriate for anyone to write about themselves or anything they are personally involved with, or may have some unique insight into. Indeed, the presumption seems to be that if an original source adds something to a Wikipedia entry, it must be false or spun or have some hidden agenda. Therefore, the resulting practice has become, it’s okay to get ones best friend to correct a Wikipedia entry, but don’t do it yourself. That way you’ll be able to say, “I have never edited my Wikipedia entry.” (Better yet, if you can say, “I never read my Wikipedia entry,” you’re even cooler on the geek scale.) The irony of this convoluted etiquette can best be seen in this quote from one of the articles: Wales said the proper course would have been for Microsoft to write or commission a “white paper” on the subject with its interpretation of the facts, post it to an outside Web site and then link to it in the Wikipedia articles’ discussion forums.</i>PatW Oh and yes, I've read all your points and think that that removed information says a lot that needs re-iterating and properly sourcing.PatW
 * The issue, Pat, is not only about who writes a white paper, but who publishes it. In the case of Microsoft, that is acceptable within the constrains explored in WP:SELFPUB, that is we can cite Microsoft's white paper, within the article about Microsoft and only to describe Microsoft's opinion, Microsoft being a notable enterprise at that. Also note that this is not what I find acceptable or not, Pat, this is about how Wikipedia works as described in its content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Fails "good article" criteria
This article does not meet good article criterian, in my opinion. However, as I have contributed, (though albeit not "significantly) to the article in the past, I will not remove it myself from Good Article listing. This is how the article, as of March 10, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria: When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration.  Thanks for your work so far.  Smee 22:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
 * 1) Well written? - Awkward structuring, inadequate Lead section which does not summarize full content of article, and is too lengthy in other areas.
 * 2) Factually accurate/verifiable? - Is factually accurate and verifiable in most cases, however article should cut down on high-number of references/citations which ultimately come from Prem Rawat or Rawat-affiliated organizations as source.
 * 3) Broad in coverage? - Not broad enough in coverage, criticism section should be standalone section, expanded upon. More information needs to be given regarding conflict/falling out with other members of family.  Lawsuits against critics in order to attempt to remove information from the internet not covered at all.
 * 4) Written from Neutral Point of View? - Fails Neutral Point of View, slanted bias towards article's subject. Article would be written much differently if written from POV of independent source, i.e. coverage in media/journalistic tack.
 * 5) Article stability? - Fails stability, changes and is subject of edit wars and proposals to split/merge content.
 * 6) Images? - Does contain images, released from Prem Rawat Foundation directly.


 * Thanks Smee, but I would have preferred another reviewer that has not edited this or other related articles as you did. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have stated my objection about this review at Good_article_candidates. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would also like to point out, that this article has been peer reviewed twice: Review 1 and Review 2 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries. Hopefully other reviewers will comment as well.  I have responded on the review page.  Smee 23:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Unpacking this review
The article has 138 citations based on more than 50 sources, of which only a handful are sourced to related organizations There is nothing wrong in using images placed in the public domain by a related organization. As per the abundant third-party, scholarly sources, this article describe what these sources have to say about the subject There is a full section on criticism, see Prem_Rawat. Abundant sources as per above I agree that at this point there is an ogoing discussion about improving the article further. That should be no grounds for not evaluating GA status. The merger was accomplished on January 19. this article has been peer reviewed twice: Review 1 and Review 2 and all suggestions for improvement accepted and worked on. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Factually accurate/verifiable:
 * Images :
 * Written from Neutral Point of View:
 * Broad in coverage :
 * Article stability :
 * Well written :

Those other reviews also advise you to make similar changes Smee suggests. In fact exactly what many of us here have been telling you and Momento for ages, and which you resist doing and obstruct others from doing. I think that you both are now conspicuously losing your arguments to expunge criticism, ex-premies etc from the article and you might want to accept that with slightly better grace. It would seem that the way in which you and Momento interpret (even manipulate) Wikipedia Guidelines is way too strict and biased and results now in this 'Bad Article' judgement. I also think the way you've historically gone about obstructing the kinds of changes we've all been suggesting amounts to a form of filibustering which puts others off. You may well be sincere in your strict adherence to these guidelines but these people come and tell you the same stuff and STILL you just don't seem to get the message. Your way has not produced a balanced neutral-sounding article in these judges views. Don't you think you should back off and let others do more here? I'd love to do more edits on this article but do you know why I don't? Because I know you and Momento will wait till my back is turned and presto..it'll all be gone. That demonstrates to me that the followers influence here is unhealthily disproportionate to the lesser influence of critics. Maybe in the past it was the other way around. I would like to think that we could maybe redress the balance now. Especially in the light of these reviews.PatW


 * Pat: Smee was involved in this and several articles quite extensively. As such, his "review" is not such. The article was peer reviewed and all comments of the reviewers were addressed. The article is now on GA candidacy, and that my attract uninvolved editors that can assist with improving this article. As for your ongoing accusations, which I have been politely asking you to desist from making them, I ask you yet again: don't. If there are areas of this article that need improving, let us collaborate in doing so. There is no reason why we could not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Pat: - You do raise some interesting good points, that not surprisingly, others have raised in the past as well... Smee 00:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Points which are not helping neither Pat's arguments, nor this article. How many times one have to say "let's collaborate in making this article better"? Or is it just an argument for the sake of argumentation? I simply do not get it. Each and every editor that has come to contribute to this article, has been welcomed and any concerns addressed. We have requested third opinions via requests for comments when we could not find common ground, some uninvolved editors have come along and made useful contributions, such as the merger that took place in January, etc. To state otherwise is simply not factual. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Smee. It goes without saying that I welcome your review and agree with all your comments. Jesus Jossi, why should I not accuse you and Momento of obstructing this article? I'm simply complaining that the persistent obstructions you 've put in the way of ex-premies and other people's POV are making for an unbalanced article. What's the matter? Can't I blame you for that? Don't be such a sensitive flower, I'm not attacking you personally... in fact I like you, I'm accusing you of being wrong that's all. Where are the edits of ex-premies now? There were plenty but they've all gone. There are no real ex-premie critics editing this article. They've all fled with their hands in the air because followers persistently and doggedly revert their edits here. Neither am I editing. I consider it more important at this stage to establish on this discussion page exactly what the status quo is otherwise it's a total waste of time.PatW


 * The material of "ex-premies" was not deleted by me or by Momento. That material was deleted by other editors due to the simple fact that it was unattributed opinion not available in published sources. What we were left with, was criticism published by scholars that have studied the subject and wrote about it. Could it be, Pat, that your assessment is based on lack of information about the history of this article? Obviously it is, as this example demonstrates. That is why you keep making ungrounded assessments about my role in this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My knowledge of both the history of this article and Wikipedia guidelines is far less than you, as is the time I have to devote here. I am trying to gain understanding of what the groundrules or even 'etiquette' is here before I waste my time editing further. However my assements of you and Momento obstructing the use of material on the ex-premie site stands, because that is exactly what you've constantly argued against whenever I've tried to 'push' the POV of detractors that people now say is conspicuously lacking. (as I myself have argued). Now I am beginning to suspect that your 'strict adherence' to the rules accounts for much of the lack of opposing information that these reviewers (who, I assume, are equally if not more acquainted with Wikipedia rules than you or Momento) feel is not represented. PatW


 * The status quo, Pat, is that as with any other article in Wikipedia, the article describes what reliable sources have to say about a subject. If you have such sources available that are not already been used, these are most welcome. You could start by summarizing some of the sources that have been researched and placed at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Jossi, you omit to mention that the status quo is determined among others by your double standards in assessing the reliability of sources. Your support for including Abdrea Cagan's positive book while support for excluding a rather critical article in the Washington Post is a clear example of this. Andries 11:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are getting really good at straw man arguments, Andries. (a) A source has to be evaluated in the context of the claim made. (b) the source discussed was not the WP, but two people with an ax-to grind making outrageous comments to a WP journalist. You chose to add some and omit other comments from these people because otherwise their credibility will be shot to pieces by their own statements. (c) Cagan's book has been used so far to provide supporting material for basic information such as names of PR's children. So, when you speak about sources, please remember to speak about authors, as you have a tendency to forget one at the expense of the other. Also, when you speak about sources. do not make generalizations, but address specific material use from these sources. As for your comments about "double-standards", I do not believe you are in any position to make such type of assessments of other editors. Take a hint, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to be accused by PatW that my "interpeting Wikipedia Guidelines is way too strict". It is unfortunately necessary to constantly refer to Wiki policies and guidelines because some editors have no understanding of what is OK and what isn't. All they want to do is insert anything that supports their POV with no consideration as to whether it is appropriate, literate, verifiable or biased. PatW's comment is a case in point - Jossi applies for "Good Article" status based on it being "meticulously annotated and sourced". Only about 1 in 872 ( 0.11% ) of all Wiki articles achieve "Good Article" status. But because a non-independent editor gives a contrary view, PatW claims that this article has received a "Bad Article judgement". When this sort of negatively biased, unverifiable, POV pushing occurs in the article, those editors who respect Wiki policies and guidelines, will remind the editor that this sort of conduct is unacceptable and quote the relevant policies and guidelines. The fact that it has to happen so frequently is a testment to the amount of negatively biased, unverifiable, POV pushing that happens in this article.Momento 02:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC
 * Momento, you are very strict about Wikipedia guidelines and policies only if a statement in the entry contradicts your POV. The good article review voiced some of my repeated objections against your edits, for example, the re-organization by you of the criticism section per scholar/source. Andries 11:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If an article is 'dishonest' it is bad in anybody's book. So where is this "amount of negatively biased, unverifiable, POV pushing that happens in this article"? The peer reviews suggest, if anything, that there should be a bit more of opposing POV's represented. PatW 12:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good question. Andries 11:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Review (Failed)
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #dedaca; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This article falls shy of good article standards, in my opinion. It is a good example of a B-Class article, but still needs some work to bring it up to good article quality, particularly in tone and presentation.

1. Well-written. This article is bloated, or simply too long. The lede is a good example of what is wrong with the writing in this article, as it does not adhere to WP:LEAD. The last sentance of the first paragraph seems out of place in the lede and should be incorporated into the main article. The second and third paragraphs should be mercilessly edited down to a couple sentances, with most of that information in the appropriate article sections. The closing paragraph is written from a POV favouring the subject. The lede also makes no mention of the criticisms he has faced. Also, besides overall length and bloat in the article, the criticisms section should also be written more coherently, instead of being broken down into several sections for individual criticisms.

2. Factually accurate/verifiable. Yes, though see NPOV section below. Also, there is a high level of sources for the article, many of which overlap in information and POV. Cutting out redundant sources would be a good place to start in paring down both the size of the references list and the size of the article itself.

3. Broad in its coverage. See NPOV section below. This article definately needs a more balanced focus.

4. Neutral point of view. More neutral presentation in the article and in some instances sources with better neutrality would be preferrable. From an outside view, this article spends a lot of time on fawning over the subject and his POV. The criticisms section is well-cited, but poorly written. I receive the impression the criticism section was simply tacked on to appease complaints, without balancing the tone and sources for the rest of the article. Also, for such a controversial figure, the overall balance between positive POV and critical views is way off. This is particularly noticed in how the criticism section is very neutral in tone, while much of the article is written from a very positive POV. What is particularly disturbing to me in regards to NPOV is the occasional use of antagonistic sources to support pro and simple fact claims. This seems dishonest to me, to say the least. An editor can state "anti" sources are included to support a claim of NPOV, but this is a dishonest presentation of the use of those sources. By failing to use sources in their proper context, a casual reader is easily mislead. This not only applies to purely oppositional sources, as negative information from other sources used is also notably absent from the article.

5. Stable. I cannot endorse this as a stable article. It is not the merge issue others have brought up. GA standards specifically exclude merges. It is simply that looking through the history diffs and talk pages, there is still an amount of disagreement about the article. While this is to be expected with controversial figures, an article that meets general consensus is necessary. I get the impression this is not the case for this article.

6. Images. Good use of images. The article is solid in this respect.

Fail. This article does not meet GA standards. Issues still remain pointed out from two previous peer reviews, such as the poor lede. The strongly positive POV evident in much of the article needs to be corrected. The cherry-picking of information from sources used is at least in poor taste. The article needs to be edited mercilessly to produce more consise writing. More effort needs to be put into building consensus and stability. This article has a lot of potential, but also needs a lot of work. Vassyana 08:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Comments on GA Review (Failed)
Thank you for your excellent review.Momento 09:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everything Vassyana wrote. I don't know if there are sources for my claims but this is how I would do the lead.

Prem Pal Singh Rawat also called Maharaji, (formerly called Guru Maharaj Ji) has been a speaker and teacher on the subject of "inner peace" since he was eight. Born in Haridwar, North India on 10 December 1957, Rawat was a student of Shri Hans Ji Maharaj (his father) and succeeded him when he died in 1966, assuming the role as satguru (Sanskrit: true teacher) or "Perfect Master". In 1971 he was invited to speak in London and Los Angeles and attracted substantial media attention that focused on his age and the claims of his followers. He established Divine Light Mission in the west and attracted many followers from the drug and hippy cultures. Indian style ashrams were established in 1972 whose members were required to take a vow of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Rawat's marriage to a Westerner in 1974 precipitated a family rift and Rawat's mother and his eldest brother Sat Pal, returned to India. Rawat remained in the West where he was sometimes criticised for leading a luxurious lifestyle and for a lack of intellectual content in his teachings. In the 1980s he changed the style of his message, closed the ashrams and relinquished the trappings of a Guru. Now called Maharaji, Rawat has continued to tour extensively and expound his message. According to The Prem Rawat Foundation, which he established in 2001, his message is currently distributed in eighty-eight countries, largely on video, print and television.Momento 10:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I could easily halve the length of the India, 70s, 80s & 90s sections. Incorporating the relevant criticisms as I go.Momento 10:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of work to be done, so go for it, Momento. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

So you agree with "everything Vassyana wrote"? You really are stretching the boundaries of belief there. Could that possibly be a cynical comment? Let's get this straight because your words and actions so far suggest quite the opposite. Please don't play games with us here. Please confirm that you really agree that: 1) this article spends a lot of time on fawning over the subject and his POV. 2) the criticism section was simply tacked on to appease complaints, without balancing the tone and sources for the rest of the article. 3) for such a controversial figure, the overall balance between positive POV and critical views is way off. 4) the criticism section is very neutral in tone, while much of the article is written from a very positive POV. 5) disturbing ...use of antagonistic sources to support pro and simple fact claims. 6) This is 'dishonest to say the least.' 7) including "anti" sources to support a claim of NPOV is a dishonest presentation of the use of those sources. By failing to use sources in their proper context, a casual reader is easily mislead. 8) negative information from other sources used is also notably absent from the article. PatW


 * Why the cynicism and the repeating of the review, Pat? There is a lot of work to be done, and it would be best if we keep it cool. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you ask Jossi, it is surely Momento who is being cynical here not me. Momento has been arguing vehemently that to include more critical POV would unbalance the article. Now he says he agrees with Vassyana's point that "the overall balance between positive POV and critical views is way off". Since he is a very active editor who seems to have suddenly changed his mind on an important disagreement, I think I have every right to question whether he really means what he says or whether he is mocking us. He at least owes us an explanation to his sudden volte face. If he is not sincere about this then I'd suggest that it is his cynicism that is not condusive to a 'cool' atmosphere. Do you think he sincerely means this? PatW


 * PatW, my recent discussions have been about improving the lead. I have made less than a dozen article edits in a month. My main effort has been to reduce the lead in accordance with Wiki:Lead. And, having done so, others editors kept adding material and I objected to a new sentence being added that included the "claims of brainwashing and mind control" as "undue weight". When an editor inserted a sentence on Rawat's honours, I removed it. When it was re-inserted, I removed it again and the new criticism to avoid an edit war. A week ago I wrote the following about it - "Once again the lead section has become POV'd. The inclusion of criticism is way out of proportion to its presence in the article and the honours paragraph is even worse. If the lead was to follow WP:LS, the lead section should be a microcosm of the article. And that in a biography is, largely, the events that have taken place over the life of the subject. The first three paragraphs, up to "executive jets" is OK and covers Rawat from birth to the 80s/9's but after that it wanders off to pro and negative and then a section on TPRF which is, again, way out of proportion to its importance. The fourth and final paragraph should take us from the 80s/90s to the present activities of Rawat and round off the lead. I am going to give it some thought. In the meantime I am going to remove the little pro and con edit war." And it was me who initiated merging a much expanded criticism article with this and Jossi has been pleading for someone to incorporate the "criticism" through out the article in order to improve balance, with no response. I would like to see "the Techniques of Knowledge" section replaced with "Teachings of Rawat" to illustrate the Inidan/Ashram and after Indian differences, I would like to see the scholars material incorporated in this section.Momento 20:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Momento, have these reviews changed your opinion about using some of the wealth of material available from ex-premie.org such as the complaints of that group, testimonies of former key personnel (like Mike Dettmers) or transcribed DLM publications?PatW


 * The ex-premie website is not an acceptable source of material for this article.Momento 01:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It would not be the first time a review, third opinion or request for comment has changed someone's view of an article. Please WP:AGF on the part of your fellow editors. Vassyana 19:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Vassyana. There is a lot of work to do in this article if we ever want the article to be upgraded from B-Class to GA status. The focus of the discussions in the page should not be on our views of other editors, but in working toward that goal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support User:Vassyana - A very apt and well thought-out review. Perhaps there are actually a great many individuals who feel that this article is extremely biased, and not from the critical POV for sure...    Smee 14:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Thanks, Vassyana for responding to my request to review the article. We shall endeavor to correct these aspects, hopefully by the combined effort of interested editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for taking my review in good faith. It was a really interesting article to read, even if the talk pages were a little long (though no less interesting) to read. O:-) Vassyana 16:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. I sincerely hope we can work out a version that addresses the concerns presented, and that it reaches a stable state so that it can be reviewed again. I will drop you a line when we have achieve that. Thanks again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana. Smee. Yes I know I should assume good faith, but you try putting some critical POV into this article and I guarantee you'll soon enough find your patience tried by the sort of straw-man arguments you've presumably seen above. Your assements essentially are the same as mine and so of course I welcome them. What we could really use now is some advice from you about what specific material (that we have debated above) can be used to represent the critical POV. This is a constant and very tiresome sticking point here. Jossi and Momento have never permitted any references from or to critics websites, and I see no suggestion whatsoever that they will change their minds now. They have not yet gone into detail as to how your comments may have changed their views. Where else we can hope to find critical material other than on critical websites God knows. Very few scholars or books have really covered this matter apart from the much quoted follower scholar Ron Geaves who provides biased 'scholarly' references. There are plenty of publications linked to Rawat that cover 'critics' in a very negative way - for example the law suits- you're only going to get it from the followers perspectives or sources that support their views unless we use material from critics websites. The former is the sort of coverage I'm afraid we can expect to be permitted, and it cannot be anything other than very one-sided. As you can see I am still extremely pessimistic about this. I would be most grateful if you and other reviewers could comment on the use of material from critics websites otherwise I believe there is no hope for the inadequacies you've pointed out in the article being rectified.PatW

Jossi do you think we could include material from www.ex-premie.org now? How about the groups actual list of major complaints? Prem Rawat's own words about say, the ashram in the seventies?PatW
 * Pat: Please read WP:ATT and WP:ATT/FAQ where all the information you need about which type of sources can be used in articles is explained. I have explained this to you many a times already, and the GA review will not change Wikipedia policy. The reviewer has made several suggestions that have to be worked out within Wikipedia content policies and the consensus of editors. There is no way around that, I am afraid. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Pat, the other editors are correct in resisting "anti" websites being used as sources, per WP:ATT. There are already reliable sources in the article that can provide critical information, such as Cagan's Peace Is Possible, Melton's Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America and Lans' Volgelingen van de goeroe: Hedendaagse religieuze bewegingen in Nederland. It may be possible to provide some "anti" websites in the external links to balance out the "official" and "pro" websites. But, how to handle both matters is best left to consensus. I will abstain from participation, as I'd like remain an uninvolved neutral party. However, I'll be happy to offer advice or suggestions based on my review and responses to it. Vassyana 10:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer to assist. Note that the specific anti websites Pat wants to add do not past the muster of WP:EL and would violate WP:BLP (my highlight): ("Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below). These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception."). I have explained this to Pat many times to no avail. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Childhood in India
I would remove the material in bold

Rawat was born in India where he attended the Catholic-run St. Joseph's Academy elementary school in Dehra Dun. He was the fourth and youngest son of Shri Hans Ji Maharaj and his second wife, Jagat Janani Mata Shri Rajeshwari Devi.[14][15] At the age of three he began speaking about fulfillment, love, and peace at his father's meetings.[16] In these early days, Rawat was known both as Sant Ji[17] and as Balyogeshwar.[18] and when he was six years old, his father taught him the techniques of Knowledge, including young Prem among his other students. In 1966, at age eight, Rawat succeeded to the role of Satguru and leadership of the DLM upon the death of his father, which was unusual since it was not in accordance with Hindu tradition of primogeniture.[19][20] '''His family told American reporters during the early 1970s that Shri Hans was away from home at the time of his death, and that shortly beforehand he had written a letter home to his family essentially naming Rawat as his successor. There is a witness account by Shri Hans' personal driver which refers to Shri Hans' request for Prem to succeed him.[21] Speaking much like his father, he took the stage and assured those that mourned his father death, that the master would always be with them and that he would continue his father's work.[22] His succession was generally accepted when the crowd responded to him as their teacher.[23][24] Afterwards, his mother and brothers came on stage to pay their respects to him.[25] '''

Rawat remained in India for five more years, continuing to offer the Knowledge his father had championed. In the late 1960s, a small number of young Western seekers, many of them hippies''', had come across Rawat at his home in Dehra Dun. Several of them asked Rawat to visit the West, where, they said, many young people would be interested in what he had to offer.''' In October 1969 he sent a mahatma to London to begin teaching Knowledge on his behalf. In 1970 many of his new Western followers traveled to India to see and hear him and were present when he announced at a gathering at India Gate in Delhi that he was ready to begin the task of bringing peace to the world. This gathering of 1,000,000 people on 8 November, was reported to be one of the largest ever in the history of New Delhi and was the culmination of an 18-mile-long procession.[26] According to the Dutch religious scholar and minister Reender Kranenborg, this speech called the Peace Bomb marked the start of the Maharaji's mission to the West.[27]

Momento 01:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Why? I can see no good reason. Andries 14:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The 1970s
And whilst I'm at it, I would remove the material in bold. I would keep this section for chronological facts and any material regarding his teaching ashrams, scholars opinions would be in a new section "Teachings of Prem Rawat" which would replace "Techniques of Knowledge".

Rawat first came to the West during his school holidays on 17 June 1971, visiting the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada. He traveled without his family and reported that he arrived with only twenty-five pounds sterling in his pocket.[28] He was interviewed by the BBC and spoke at the first Glastonbury Festival, where he again offered people peace. Rawat made brief trips to Paris and Heidelberg, Germany, and on 17 July flew to Los Angeles and began a tour of American cities.[29] Rawat returned to India in October to commemorate his father's birthday having first established the US Divine Light Mission, or DLM, in September 1971 in Denver, Colorado. In 1972, Rawat returned to the West, this time accompanied by his mother and eldest brother, Satpal, and an entourage of mahatmas and other supporters. That year DLM held a multi-day event at Montrose, Colorado at which two thousand people attended. In November 1973, DLM booked the Houston Astrodome for a three-day gathering coinciding with Shri Hans' birthday called "Millennium '73".[30] The attendance was estimated at twenty thousand and according to Thomson Gale, "the rapidly developing movement ran into trouble, beginning with its inability to fill the Houston Astrodome in a highly publicized event."[31][32] Rennie Davis, a former member of the Chicago Seven, was a prominent spokesman for the group at that event.[33] By the early 1970s, DLM was operating in South America, North America, Europe, and Australia and had established ashrams, whose members were required to take a vow of poverty, chastity, and obedience.[34][35][36] In 1974, DLM was reporting that 60,000 individuals were practicing the techniques of Knowledge in the United Kingdom and "it was a successful movement because it stressed access to the inner world, the attainment of peace and certainty ( 'leave no room for doubt in your mind'), direct experience of God within and the use of guaranteed methods".[37] In May 1974 at age sixteen, Rawat married Marolyn Johnson, a twenty-five year old flight attendant and one of his early American students,[38]. '''According to Cagan, Rawat named her at the wedding in keeping with Indian tradition, after the Hindu Goddess Durga. [39] The marriage to a Westerner apparently precipitated a rift between Prem and his mother,[40] for what she described as his pursuit of a "despicable, nonspiritual way of life."[41]''' Rawat took control of the Western DLM away from them, and his mother disowned him and returned to India with two of his brothers. His mother gained control of DLM India through legal means and appointed the eldest brother, Satpal, as leader of the DLM in India. The other two brothers split in allegiance, one siding with Prem and one siding with Satpal. Most of the mahatmas in the West either returned to India with his mother or were fired. Rawat later commented to the press on the family rift, saying "They live in India and I think [my mother] was upset that I married a foreigner. She thought I had married out of my caste or something like that."[42] According to an article in the 1979 Sociological Review, Maharaj Ji was financially independent through the generosity of his devotees and this allowed him to follow the lifestyle of an American millionaire, support his family and finance close officials and mahatmas on their frequent trips around the globe.[43] During these years, claims of divinity made by the Indian mahatmas, his family, and some followers were reported by the media.[44][45] Kranenborg wrote in a 1982 article that "in Maharaj ji's satsangs one can notice a speaking style that resembles very much some Christian evangelization campaigns: a pressing request, an emphasis on the last possibility to choose before it is too late and a terminology in which one is requested to surrender to the Lord, in this case Maharaj ji himself."[46]The American religious scholar J. Gordon Melton wrote in 1986 that, "[..]Maharaj Ji, as do many of the other Sant Mat leaders, claims to be a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God on earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration."[47]Rawat denied claims to be divine in several interviews given to the press and on television.[48][49] In 1971 he had said that yes, he is human (with) hands, bone (and) lungs but that "guru is greater than God because if you go to guru, guru will show you God".[50] In an autobiographical book by an early follower who was quite involved with the DLM in the early 70s, Sophia Collier writes, "There are those who sincerely believe that Guru Maharaj Ji is the Lord of Creation here in the flesh to save the world. And then there are those who know him a little better than that. They relate to him in a more human way... to them he is more of a teacher, a guide, a co-conspirator in their personal pursuit of a more heavenly way of life.".[51] '''According to Stephen J Hunt, a professor of sociology, the major focus of Rawat is on stillness, peace, and contentment within the individual, and his 'Knowledge' consists of the techniques to obtain them. Knowledge, roughly translated, means the happiness of the true self-understanding. Each individual should seek to comprehend his or her true self. In turn, this brings a sense of well-being, joy, and harmony as one comes in contact with one's "own nature."[52] The first posters about Rawat in the early 1970s said, “Meditation is not what you think.” At that time, Rawat was already making a distinction between the "mind", which he described as including the dark or negative thoughts that a person may have, and "heart", the place within each person where peace can be found. Lans and Derks wrote that according to Maharaj Ji, "all evil should be attributed to the mind", and that such concept of mind indicates the obstacle of freeing oneself from former bonds, referring primarily to a "state of consciousness characterized by everything but passive, nonrational confidence and trust."[53] In the 1970s Rawat spoke in more than twenty countries and received the keys to the cities of New York City, New Orleans, Monterey, Oakland, Detroit, Miami, and Macon, Georgia in the United States, and Kyoto, Japan.[54]'''

Scholastic material about the ashram, divinity, teachings etc would be found in "Teaching of PR" Momento 01:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly opppose removal of sourced scholarly material from Kranenborg and Melton. I have stated this many times and I do not think that I should repeat and repeat this. Andries 14:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

1980s/90s
I would remove the material in bold. I would keep this section for chronological facts and any material regarding his teaching ashrams, scholars opinions would be in a new section "Teachings of Prem Rawat" which would replace "Techniques of Knowledge".

The 1980s and 1990s

Rawat returned to India in October 1980 for the first time since 1975, and spoke to over 38,000 students in Delhi on newly acquired land. He returned to South America for events for the first time since 1976, and visited Mexico for the first time. He continued to hold large, multi-day events for his students in Cartagena (Colombia), Miami, Rome, London, New Delhi, and Kansas City (Missouri). Other cities where he spoke included Cancun (Mexico), Lima, Sao Paulo, and Leicester (UK). He obtained a private pilot’s license and began training to obtain certifications and ratings for operating various types of aircraft. '''For a time around 1980, the center of operations moved to Miami, where activities included a project known as DECA. DECA was concerned with the customization of a Boeing 707 intended for Rawat's work, and the development of a commercial executive aircraft refurbishing facility. During 1981, Rawat flew the 707 to forty different cities and spoke on 120 separate occasions. He crisscrossed North America four times that year, touring South America, Europe, India, Nepal, Australia, New Zealand, and Malaysia. The DECA business was later sold to Aircraft Modular Products (AMP), a leader in the field of business jet interiors which which in turn was sold in 1998 to B/E aerospace for $118 US million.[55]''' The Encyclopedia of American Religions describes that in the early 1980s Rawat personally renounced the trappings of Indian culture and religion, and disbanded the DLM, to make his teachings independent of culture, religious beliefs, and lifestyles.[13]''' Other scholars, such as Kranenborg, George D. Chryssides and Ron Geaves also described a departure from divine connotations.[56][57] Rawat continued delivering the four techniques of Knowledge which, according to Chryssides, afford self-understanding and self-realization, in a manner that is independent of culture and not bound to the traditions of India.[58]  James V. Downton, in his 1979 book Sacred Journeys, writes that in 1976 the majority of premies saw Rawat primarily as their "spiritual teacher, guide, and inspiration", and quit imputing great powers to him, assuming more responsibility for their own personal growth. He asserts that, since the beginning, Rawat appealed to his followers to give up beliefs and concepts, so that they could experience the Knowledge more fully, but that it did not prevent followers from adopting a "a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity and the coming of a new age."[59] '''In the early 1980s the late Margaret Singer included the DLM in the list of groups she studied. In 1979, Singer mentioned the Divine Light Movement as one of a set of groups that have "intense relationships between followers and a powerful idea or leader", in an article in Psychology Today.[60]''' In 1983 the Western ashrams were closed and the Divine Light Mission changed its name to Elan Vital.[61][62] The video production organization was renamed "Visions International,"[63] and it began producing video versions of Rawat's addresses. According to America's Alternative Religions, during the 1980s, Rawat stepped away from the image of himself as a "Perfect Master" and dropped the title "Guru Maharaj Ji" in favor of "Maharaji". He continued to appear to audiences as Maharaji, a teacher, and established a minimal organization called Elan Vital. In this new role, "he may be reaching more listeners than ever, especially abroad, but his role is that of a public speaker, and the original religious movement is essentially defunct."[64] An article published on 4 December 1987 in The Times of India, describes Rawat's mission as involving international tours during which he explains to "people in general without any distinction of caste, color, race, stature, or wealth that the source of happiness, peace and contentment lies within one's own self. [...] He is trying to prepare humanity to face and overcome the present day tussle and turmoil prevailing in the world in the name of achieving world peace, on individual basis. In fact what Maharaj Ji is trying to do is not being comprehended by most of the people, with the results that he is included in the category of those persons who have become mere machines to collect wealth, while Maharaj Ji has taken a pledge to complete this huge task without any monetary consideration."[65] Rawat continued to tour extensively in the 1980s and 1990s, most often at the controls of a series of executive jets leased for his use. He held multi-day events in over 40 countries and in 1990 he spoke at over 50 public events all over the world. In December 1998, Rawat spoke via a live, interactive global satellite broadcast from an event in Pasadena, California, to 86,600 participants in 173 locations in 50 countries. In 1999 his message started being broadcast on a regular basis via satellite to North American cities with similar initiatives in other regions and countries.

.Momento 01:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that you refrain from editing out anything, Momento, until a concensus is reached between editors. What's the rush?  Sylviecyn 09:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

21st Century
I would remove the material in bold. I would keep this section for chronological facts and any material regarding his teaching ashrams, scholars opinions would be in a new section "Teachings of Prem Rawat" which would replace "Techniques of Knowledge". I would like a better name for this section.

Although based in the U.S., Rawat is active all over the world. Between 1965, when his addresses were first documented, and July 2005, he addressed audiences at 2,280 events around the world. Between January 2004 and June 2005 alone, he delivered 117 addresses in Asia, Europe, and North America.[66][67]With a more culturally neutral approach, Rawat now concentrates on what he calls a "universal message of peace" and "self-fulfillment",[68] introducing people to the possibility of inner peace. According to the Prem Rawat Foundation, his message is currently distributed in eighty-eight countries, largely on video and in print. His message is broadcast in various TV channels such as Canal Infinito in South America, Channel 31 in Australia, Kabel BW in Germany, Dish Network in the U.S.A, and others. The video broadcasts have won awards from various non-related entities.[69] Rawat reportedly travels about eleven months out of the year on world-wide speaking and training tours. In addition to speaking at large gatherings of students and interested persons, he speaks at various cultural, educational, and community forums. He reportedly spoke to more than a million and a half people in a 2005 India tour.[70] In 2001 a new organization, the Prem Rawat Foundation, was founded as a non-profit organization largely for the production and distribution of audiovisual and other materials containing Rawat's message.[71] The Foundation also oversees several humanitarian efforts around the world, '''providing food and medical relief to war-torn areas and medical care in impoverished areas.[72] On 24 March 2006, Rawat inaugurated a facility in the tribal area of Jharkhand, India, called "Food for People". It was developed and operated, in consultation with local village elders, to provide 45,000 free meals to children and adults in need each month. The facility is run by fifty local villagers trained by volunteers of the Raj Vidya Kender. The facility was developed with the financial support of The Prem Rawat Foundation.[73]''' Elan Vital organizations remain active in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Switzerland and there are other independent, volunteer-based organizations that promote Rawat's teachings locally in 88 countries of all five continents.[75] ,''' and are engaged in event organization, logistics, and fundraising. These entities are much smaller now than the DLM has been in times past, with only a small paid staff and volunteers doing most of the work and preparation for events. While these organizations report that they seek and accept Rawat's input, he is not an officer, director, or employee of Elan Vital or the Prem Rawat Foundation. They report he receives no income from them for his services or from the sale of materials other than reimbursement for documented tour and speaking expenses.[74] Geaves, in his paper From Divine Light Mission to Elan Vital and Beyond (2004), in which he studied the evolution of the related organizations, states that Rawat has chosen to perpetually transform the organizational structures that surround him in such a manner, that these structures are created, utilized and then destroyed, providing this way with the necessary flexibility to address changing social attitudes as well as keeping his students focused on his core message rather than in organizational forms. [76] The author David V. Barrett writes in his book The New Believers, that the "the flamboyant and definitively Eastern-inspired Divine Light Mission", has matured into something new changing its name to reflect a current emphasis as well as to distance itself from the past. Barrett asserts that the fact that Rawat came from a lineage of 'Perfect Masters', is no longer relevant as that is not where the authority comes from, neither from the recognition of Rawat as the master by his student, rather, this comes from "the nature of the teachings and its benefit to the individual." He also writes that "the Divine Light movement used to be criticized for the devotion given to Maharaji, who was thought to live a life of luxury on the donations of his followers" but a spokesperson "clearly conscious of past criticism, is emphatic that Maharaji has never earned anything from Elan Vital or any other movement promoting his teachings". Barrett continues that "the experience is an individual, subjective experience rather than on a body of dogma, and in its Divine Light days the movement was sometime criticized for this stressing of emotional experience over intellect."[77] '''

If everyone is happy with this reduction to the basics, I will have a go at "Teachings of PR"

Momento 01:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello all,

I am new here, but am keen to have Wiki reflect truthfully what I have experienced from Prem Rawat over a lot of years. I can see problems with this format, and admire you all for having the stamina to continue. I just went through and made some uncontroversial editings to the main article, grammatical things, and some sentence restructuring for fluency, but it looks like Momento is suggesting major changes. Well, that's OK. I might make a few mistakes as a newby, so please bear with me.

Rumiton 13:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Rumiton. Please take care not to change the grammar or anything, actually, within quoted material. If the quoted author has made the grammatical mistake, we're stuck with it as the author wrote it if the text is within quotes.  As for paraphrased material, it's best if you have the material in front of you before changing the context as editors have done extensive research on the article.  Welcome!  Have fun editing.  Sylviecyn 18:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Welcome, Rumiton and thanks for your contributions. We could do with a good copyeditor, and seems that you got a good handle on grammar given your edits. Go for it and don't worry about making mistakes, though. If you do, others will quickly fix them and assist you if needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Yes, I had that woops feeling after changing the tense in the quote from the dutch book. I am rather used to correcting/editing translations, and writing of past happenings in the present tense is normal in Dutch, German and I believe, Spanish, but leaving them there is a common error in English translation. Rumiton 10:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Just looking again at the text. I notice there are references to ashram members being asked to take a "vow of poverty, chastity and obedience." I understand that if a respected author makes this claim, then it must be admitted to the article, but I was an ashram coordinator from '72 to '76 and can say that in Australia anyway, there was no such "vow." It was just a lifestyle that people who wanted to could adopt. If it didn't work out, they left. Or someone like me kicked them out. What is the procedure for dealing with an issue like this? Rumiton 12:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the geneal idea is that if it comes from a valid resource then we can report it. However as you know, we want to keep this article looking as 'pro' Rawat as possible, so it's probably best we get rid of that. Hey and let's not be too concerned about 'the truth'..nudge nudge... some of those hateful ex-premies might want us to include some other stuff if we go down that route! Anyway you'll learn soon enough the procedure to avoid trouble around here. Occasionally we make a big fuss that we're trying to make a really great article and get the official 'thumbs up' from Wiki peers. (no real hope of that of course unless we get a 'friendly' peer review). Of course we're really just playing for time. After a Wiki guy says the article needs a lot of 'paring down' we just take that opportunity to pare out all the stuff we don't like...Call it a periodic 'purge of the negative' if you like. Usually at this point all the ex-premie types get so frustrated they leave us alone. The important thing is that we pretend that we're sincere about the peer review suggestions and then it's back to the important stuff of keeping this article looking positive about our Master. PatW

BTW that rubbish about the vows..maybe we should leave that in there because it's a 'harmless' enough scholarly reference. We have to tack on some reference to ashrams even if it is jsut so as we can see 'we've covered that'. I mean you and I can pretend that " It was just a lifestyle that people who wanted to could adopt. If it didn't work out, they left." Or as you said, someone like you kicked them out! But for heavens sake keep it to that, always stress that it was our 'choice' and don't, whatever you do, let on that there was any pressure to join the ashram and our Master yelled at us that us it was a rare opportunity to surrender to him. We don't want people to really know how the whole thing was about surrendering to him and not following your own mind. Rememebr, despite what the peer reviewers said...dishonesty is ok in this article because it's for a higher purpose than truth with a 'little' 't'.PatW


 * Seems to me I must have somehow blinked recently, and all scientifically worth while abstracts from authors on the subject have at once disappeared! And only the evidently indestructible dregs of outdated and superficial Dutch theology have survived in the article. For an uninformed reader there is no clue left as to the real content and context of Prem Rawat’s message from a more descriptive and less casual and less judgemental perspective. This situation is now highly unbalanced and should not be tolerated. Either those “scholarly” critics should vanish, too, or the findings of the deleted, but more serious authors should be well proportionally mentioned. I would prefer the latter. What was the reason for this grave setback of the article’s laboriously acquired intellectual claim and content? This is not a rhetoric question. Who did this and why?--Rainer P. 15:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Rainer, no material was deleted. Editors have been working on the article since the GA review, applying its recommendations. Critical material was left in the Criticism section, and all other scholar opinion that was not critical moved to the appropriate chronology section. As for Pat's sarcasm, I do not think that is is useful. Editors have been trying in good faith to respond to the review, by making what they see are useful changes, such as making the lead compatible with WP:LEAD and establishing a criticism section. There is a lot of work to do still, such as keeping the tone more encyclopedic, expanding on sources, etc. but good progress is being made by those that are contributing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Jossi, and sorry for obvious impatience. Still, it seems worth considering that an open-minded reader who is just seeking information has a hard time gathering all the scattered, more descriptive issues, while the impact of the collected critics is more easily attained. From a didactic view this favours a repudiating attitude, doesn’t it?
 * And, PatW: There was certainly no vowing procedure I can remember when I joined the ashram, nor for any of the “brothers & sisters” there. Things were in a way simply understood, in a rather – sorry – playful manner, as appears to me after some maturing. I had a fine time there - maybe, because I actually wanted to be there. I really don’t know about other ashrams or other countries, but if there was really no vowing involved, there should not be such an – in that case somewhat sensationalistic (oh my god! Chastity! Poverty!! Obedience!!!) – statement in the article, should it?--Rainer P. 16:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In the United States, where DLM International was incorporated, in Denver, Colorado, with Maharaji as it's legal Chief Minister until 1976, living in the ashram required poverty (no private monies allowed, all trust funds and real estate was turned over to DLM or Maharaji personally, and all income was surrendered to the ashram on paydays), chastity (no sex of any kind, including masturbation), and obedience (always obeying every wish and order of Maharaji and those he placed in charge of us, i.e., community coordinator, initiator/mahatmas, DLM officials) -- all these absolutely were the strict criteria for living in an official DLM ashram in the states. Ashram premies also had to be vegetarians, not use alchohol, tobacco, or drugs.  Where we lived was at the edict of a DLM community coordinator, an instructor, or DLM itself, as in my case when I was officially transferred from Hartford, Conn. sisters' ashram to Miami Beach to work at Maharaji's DECA B707 project.


 * If premies didn't follow Maharaji/DLM's ashram rules (which Maharaji wrote, btw) they were not allowed to continue living in the ashram, and of course, there was also extensive screening for anyone to be allowed into the ashram, including that they could not be carrying any financial debt. I also joined the ashram because I wanted to, but that decision was also based on Maharaji's very strong satsangs about single, available premies living in ashrams, as the best way to serve him. There's plenty of satsang of his to prove this.  I think that ex-premies' complaints about Rawat's closing of them is widely misunderstood.  Many premies had sincerely made a life-time commitment to Maharaji by living in ashrams (Maharaji said it was for life) sacrificing the most vital years of their lives, forsaking education and careers.  Some were strapped with the collective ashram debts when he closed them without one word from him to them, only another edict from DLM/EV honchos.  The majority of ashram premies I knew (a lot, especially in Miami) lived the ashram life very seriously, because Maharaji required that.  But, it's true, there was no formal vow taken, the ashram life was understood by virtue of one living in one.  But, I've gone off-topic (I know Jossi, I know) It's beginning to dawn on me that Australia is on a whole other planet, not just around the world!  Best wishes :-)  Cynthia Gracie Sylviecyn 17:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I must have lived in different ashrams than the ones described by folks here. Things were very, very strict wherever I lived.  Oh well... :-) Sylviecyn 13:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I was also not asked to take these vows, although it was implied that joining the ashram precluded you from marrying. I also never saw an "ashram manual", and I pursued a career in computing while I was living in the ashram. Nevertheless, this is indeed off-topic. Let's focus on improving the article, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Whilst people may have worked in a job they later valued as a career, they undoubtedly gave all their earnings to the ashram. In the ashram one was not allowed to choose or pursue a favoured career by any means. I was strongly discouraged from pursuing music as a job for that very reason and gave it up, until I was officially asked to rehearse with the official London premie music group in 1980. Up till then I worked in whatever other jobs I could get. When a someone had a particlular skill that was seen as needed for service to Rawat people were sometimes permitted to work in that area, but it was not supposed to be a matter of choice. Important distinction. Put it like this, if you'd said at the time that you were 'pursuing a career in computing' you would have been booted out like I eventually was during the infamous ashram purge of 1981 (ish) which was specifically orchestrated by those in charge to get rid of people who were judged to be pursuing personal agendas.PatW


 * Yes. Many editors believe that having a criticism section is a "POV magnet". An alternative would be to place/intersperse these elements in the corresponding chronological sections. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Just reading the GA recommendations. They look good and reasonable to me. I will print out the whole text of Momento's bold suggestions (heheh, my little joke) tomorrow and see if the article seems to suffer by the omission, and if the remainder stands alone. Rumiton 14:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be great if Rumiton could look at the reduced sections for readability etc. I was thinking that rather than keep the "decade" headings ie 70s, 80&90s, 21st century etc, we addressed the two main periods - the Indian period (71 - 83) something like "Relocating to the West" or "Rawat in America" and the post Indian period (82 onwards)something like "Westernisation" or "The Demise of DLM": etc.Momento 02:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. Nothing better than a fresh pair of eyes for copyediting. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Next Step
As you will see by my suggested edits above, I would like to see a "Teachings of PR" section. This section would contain a readable sumation of the scholars opinions etc. Jossi, could you set up a "sandbox" page so I can have a go at it and other editors can contribute, so that the don't edit this article until we are all agreed.Momento 19:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You can just start a sandbox page yourself, or example at Talk:Prem_Rawat/Teachings. Follow the link and start editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. In the next day or so I will try to amalgamate "teachings" from Shri Maharaji, through M's Indian period (Arya Samaj), early Indian Western (ashrams, divinity), post Indian and current.Momento 19:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Would it make more sense to work on the lead first, establishing what will be in the article, rather than jump from section to section? I think one of the problems with the lead is that it doesn't really define who Maharaji is so that readers know from the outset, i.e., is he a spiritual teacher, an inspirational speaker, a religious leader, or the leader of a new religious movement?  I know you might not want to put M in a box, but this is for the benefit of an uninformed reader.  I also think that it might help coordinate efforts to shape up the article so that it passes muster if we work on sections together, as with the Techniques of K article which I think went well with the recent rewrite of the descriptions section.  I'd appreciate editors' thoughts on this. Sylviecyn 13:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Sylviecyn. Out of my depth here and dogpaddling like mad, but from what I understand of Wiki's requirements the lede should set the feeling and tone of what follows, and also provide a broad statement of content. It seems to me that we need to get that clear first, then we will have a set of rules of our own making to proceed with. A truly NPOV will be a part of this. Also like Momento's editing. I could not see anything on his/her hitlist that wasn't at least somewhat repetitive, and I think it added to the neutral tone of the article. Off we go. What fun. Rumiton 14:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Usually it is done the other way around. The lead needs to represent a good summary of the whole article, and not to "define who XYZ is" as Sylviecyn says. This is a biographical article, so first you develop the article, and then you write the lead summarizing the biography. See what WP:LEAD says. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * But don't let me stop you. You can try and invest some effort to see fit it would work, though I doubt it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

I just experienced something called an "editorial conflict", and everything I wrote disappeared. This way of producing a piece of collaborative writing reminds me of what Winston Churchill said about democracy: "It is the worst possible way of doing things, apart from all the others."

It just seems to me that one of the main problems the article has faced in attaining GA status was our inability to find a “balance” and thereby produce something that is “stable.” Alternating opposing points of view hasn’t done it. From the article’s POV, it’s like boiling one foot in a bath and freezing the other.

So it seems to me that it might work if we produce a short overview of Prem Rawat’s work that incorporates the very positive things that many report he has done for them, while acknowledging the disappointments experienced by others. Perhaps it should also touch on the difficult idea of “masterhood” itself. If we succeed here, a consistent writing style might follow.

Do you think? Rumiton 15:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To Jossi: I agree that writing the article text is the usual way to proceed, but in this case, in order to gain some control over the process to make changes as described in Vassyana's review of the article, perhaps a general outline of the goals to bring the article up to snuff might help.  I'm not married to any idea of how to proceed however, but maybe an agreement between editors not to edit the lead until the body of the article is completed, is in order.


 * To Maria: For your information, ex-premies' criticisms of Maharaji are not about their disappointments experienced per se, but they definitely stem from Maharaji's own own public and private behavior, the revisionism of his life story as presented to the public now, his wealth and how he really obtained it, his claims of divinity in the past, how he has treated premies and much more. Therefore, I agree with Jossi that the article must remain on the topic of Prem Rawat's life as this is his biography, thereby describing those criticisms versus the positive, in a balanced, NPOV manner. Nobody is perfect and free from criticism in the world, including Maharaji.


 * Also, I don't agree with Momento's proposed edits. I find them interesting, but don't agree and further discussion is required, imo, before incorporating them in the article.  Thanks.  Cynthia Gracie Sylviecyn 13:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said, that it is not the way it works. I have never seen anyone succeed in creating a lead before developing an article, in particular when there are strong POVs at play. The way to address the concerns Vassyana's review, is to work on the article incrementally as people have been doing since the review. Having said that, if someone comes up with brilliant prose for a lead that everybody will be happy with, that would be great. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know what the guideline says for article leads, but this article is written already. I was merely suggesting a way to make cooperation and collaboration easier on this particular article. Most writers create outlines prior to working on papers, theses, and books, especially when working with other people.  A "brilliant lead" will have to include what Prem Rawat is by profession, and also what makes him notable, because he's not famous or well-known.  All the biographies you recommended below to Maria do that in the first sentence e.g., he's a writer, poet, etc. Sylviecyn 22:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure, Rumiton. This is a biographical article, not so much an article about positive things PR has has done for people and the disappointments of others. A neutral, stable article is needed, and we can endeavor in continuing the process started with the GA review. Some good progress has already been made since. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (FYI, if you experience an edit conflict, note that your text will still be there. Page down to the bottom of the "edit conflict" page and you will find there your text) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Jossi. Still trying to assimilate the given guidelines for a Good Article. Can anyone direct me to a Biography of a Living Person that has achieved GA-Class? Rumiton 13:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * See WP:GA for a complete list/. There are very few bios that have attained GA status. Some bios: Jorge_Luis_Borges, Abraham Goldfaden, Wernher von Braun. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Jossi. I already spent an hour or so going through WP:GA for clues how to proceed, but found few bios and all of them of past players, as are the three you mention. It seems nobody has yet negotiated the difficult requirements of BLP to reach a Good Article. We shall be the first! Rumiton 07:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The little I've done with "Teachings" suggests it's probably an article in itself. I will try it that way and then work back to a synopsis for this article.Momento 20:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I have been tweaking the prose in the article a bit, as you can see. Hopefully a major revision might be possible to proceed towards GA. The two big issues I could see were conciseness ("bloated" is sure a nasty word) and neutrality. I have been trying to cut out unnecessary words to shrink the whole thing to basics, and write in a more encyclopedic tone.

One thing I have had recent (and surprising) personal experience with lately, is Hindu marriages. No less than 2 of my close friends have married into Hindu families in the last three months. Both of them tell me they had to adopt a Hindu name. It seems that for people to be married in a Hindu temple they must be or become Hindus, and you can't be a Hindu with a name like Matthew or Mahommad.

Here is a website I found referring to the practice. No doubt this is the source of the confusion. http://www.ammas.com/ar/home.cfm Rumiton 13:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, that page is now defunct, but I have e-mailed the sitemaster for the information. In the meantime, this site confirms the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. http://www.sudhirlaw.com/HMA55.htm I know, this is off topic. But interesting, no? Rumiton 14:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that the bridegroom needs to be over 21 years of age.Momento 21:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a suggestion for the 1st paragraph of the lead. Comments are welcome and I'm not in the least attached to this version, but I do think that it would be good to remove the present perfect continous tense from the first sentence. Don't know why the piped links are coming out red, but for what this is worth, have at it.


 * Prem Rawat, also known as Maharaji (formerly Guru Maharaj Ji) is a teacher and speaker about the possibility of inner peace. He offers a way for people to experience peace within themselves that is called Knowledge and he has been offering this to people since he was age eight.  Born in Haridwar, North India on December 10, 1957, Rawat was initiated into the techniques of "Knowledge" by his father, Hans Ji Maharaj when he was six and was accepted as a satguru (Sanskrit: true teacher) or "Perfect Master" at his father's funeral in 1966.[4][5]  Sylviecyn 20:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Commas in brackets seems to change the color. The tense was there to account for "since the age of eight" which is part of his notability and I think is a good inclusion in the first sentence. Also the suggestion that "He offers a way" would be disputed, it would normally be expressed "claims to offer a way". Have a look at the teaching page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Teachings and give me an opinion. Thanks.Momento 20:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Rumiton, how are you going with the bold edits I proposed? I'd would like this article to respond the the GA suggestions. Perhaps you can also look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Teachings and express an opinion. I have taken all the teaching/ scholars opinion from this article and am slowly blending them in to "Teachings".Momento 20:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Progress
I have asked Vassyana to give to assess the work done so far in response to his GA review. I am copying his response here from my talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ''Prem Rawat seems to be coming along very nicely. Checking it out, the great improvement in stability was immediately obvious. Editors are working much more in harmony and building towards the same direction. The criticisms section is greatly improved in presentation and writing. 21st Century section is more concise. The lede is vastly improved. All very good signs.


 * ''The other time period sections still need to be trimmed down and written more precisely. "Recognition - media appearances" should really be named one or the other. That section and the one that follows a little "listy". Giving some context to the various names and items would be good. After that, I'd recommend a full once-through reading of the article for copyediting and trying for the most neutral presentation Though the article is greatly improved in that regard, it never hurts to check t again after rewrites. However, the article is vastly improved overall. Good work! Vassyana 15:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories
I removed Category:Gurus and Category:Hindu gurus, as per the article content. Regarding [:Category:Charismatic religious leaders, that category is based on Webber's classification of charismatic authority, upon one mention in a source. Categories cannot assert something as a fact unless, there is wide consensus of sources. See WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are many,many sources who label Rawat as a guru. There are two three sources for charismatic leaders i.e. Dupertuis and Schnabel.  Andries 20:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I forgot McGuire's "Religion: the social context" pages 175, 335 (definition of charisma). Andries 11:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So what. Categories are not designed to "label" people, Andries. See Categorization of people ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Andries. Many sources refer to him as a guru, he is a guru but he dropped the name.  Same for charasmatic leaders.  He's considered a charasmatic leader by many sources.  Sylviecyn 01:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Moving on
I am encouraged by Vassanya's comments but there is a lot more to do. Smee's insertion, without discussion, of the contradictory Thompson Gale info on "Durga Ji" adds nothing but confusion. Since this article is already bloated with well sourced material I have taken both references to "Durga Ji" out as it doesn't warrant inclusion in a slimmed down article. Let me also add my concern that Smee's unilateral edit came just two hours after Jossi posted Vassanya's comments about the "improvement in stability" and "Editors are working much more in harmony and building towards the same direction". if I wasn't so soaked in good faith I would think I would abandon it. Momento 20:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have had my suggested edits displayed here for a week. The only objection to implementing them comes from Andries who doesn't want some "well sourced" material removed. Since this article is entirely "well sourced" material, the only way we can adhere to Wiki GA suggestions is to remove some "well sourced" material. I have already stated that any important material (including the ones mentioned by Andries) will be incorporated in an article "Teachings of Prem Rawat" which I am working on at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Teachings. Vassanya has commented that "the lede (which I rewrote) is vastly improved". And that "the other time period sections still need to be trimmed down and written more precisely", which I have done in my suggested edits. I have asked Rumiton to check my proposal and ensure accuracy, readability and relevance. If s/he doesn't come back soon, I think we should move forward to GA status by accepting the edits I have proposed.Momento 21:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Patience, Momento. Note that everyone doesn't have the time to work on this full-time as you seem to be able to do.  I'm not so concerned about the origin of Durga Ji's name, and don't see why there's such a large concern with the current quote.  It's minor compared with the advertorial that's being painted here, including your new rewrites, Momento.  I'm not clear about what you're writing on the teachings section, and it's quite confusing to read. It also doesn't attribute enough to the scholars' sources, by using quotes, and seems more like original research than NPOV writing.  The prose needs a lot of work.


 * In particular, the 3rd paragraph under "Rawat in the west 1971-83" is misleading to say the least, not to mention it's patently untrue. It seems you cherry-picked the scholarly material from both Downton and Geaves to paint an incorrect picture of the few years post 1976.  While there was a short period of time in 1976 when the Rawat did take a turn toward more western normalcy, instead of the (cough, cough) removing all those pesky "Indian trappings" that current premies are so determined to emphasize...and while some people did move out of ashrams during the summer of 1976, the fact is that the heaviest devotional period began in early 1977, shortly after Rawat's birthday party in Atlantic City, NJ.  That was when Maharaji began making strong demands for total surrender, rededication by moving into ashrams, and demanding premies' become totally focused upon being devoted to only him -- "No secondary love" is what he told us.  There are many quotes of his to verify this.  And I strongly disagree with Vasasnya's assessment of progress thus far -- I don't think this article is progressing well at all, quite the contrary, I find it digressing into an even worse example of blatant hagiography and whitewash of the real biography of Prem Rawt.  Additionally, I already said I don't agree with the bolded text in your paragraphs above you marked for removal, yet you ignored me and asked Maria when she's going to work on removing those bolded sections! Not that I'm surprised you would ignore me. That includes your proposal to remove the one reference to DECA, which was a huge project was caused an enormous shift in DLM, again with Maharaji demanding premies place even more devotional focus upon him, worship him, based upon his desire for that B707 jet.  It was another renewal of premies' efforts to provide him with what he said he needed to spread knowledge -- propagation.  Don't forget, it was during 1977 through 1980 that he was trotting out on stage wearing bare-chested krishna costumes and screaming from his lavish throwns in his crown, for total surrender to his holy lotus feet.  Sylviecyn 01:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am a bit puzzled by your comment, Sylviecyn. Progress has been made according to a third-party reviewer, as editors have been addressing the issues raised in by the GA review. I do not see the need to remove the material from DECA, as there are several sources that describe that project. As for the ashram material, we are reporting what we have in the sources provided, and if more sources are forthcoming these could be incorporated if they add substance. As for your comments about time invested, many editors in Wikipedia invest considerable time and that is not unusual. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Jossi, I'm not surprised by your puzzlement. But if you re-read my comment to Momento, you'll see that I'm asking him/her to be patient, and it's not critical of him/her in the least.  Some of us have other commitments besides editing Wikipedia.  Sylviecyn 19:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting and encouraging remarks from the GA critic. Off to work now. Will have a good look tonight. Cheers, Rumiton 02:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sylviecyn, contrary to your last post, I have not asked Maria to do anything. And contrary to your post I haven't ignored you, in fact, I asked you to comment on the "Teaching" page. Also I have not inserted any of my own opinion into the Teachings proposal as you claim. All words on that page are from either this article, the techniques article, the scholars page or other Wiki articles. All I have done is put them in chronological order. As for DECA, it is one year out of 20 in that section and I don't think it warrants a mention in a slimmed down article. As for how much time I am putting into this article, I have made two minor edits in two weeks, and written considerably less words in the talk section than you. I want this article to achieve GA status and that's what I'm working towards.Momento 07:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I also can confirm that the 70's section is deplorably lacking important info and balance  I have a cassette recording here of Prem Rawat speaking at a Rome ashram meeting in the late seventies. Here he asks for actual numbers of ashram members from all the countries. From the UK alone there were many hundreds. He also says that he wants ashrams in every country in the world. Virtually all the European countries were represented so we're talking thousands of members worldwide. Right? Sylviecyn is absolutely correct in pointing out that you are rushing ahead painting a picture which is hugely misrepresentative despite your insistence that it's all supported by scholarly refs etc. Is this Vassayana another supporter of Prem Rawat or what? What happened to the accusations of dishonesty etc? If this article gets a GA merit for being an honest appraisal of Prem Rawat then it will surely make a further mockery of Wikipedia as a balanced resource. The only reason this article is being successfully twisted into the shape that The Prem Rawat Foundation wants is that very few scholars knew about, let alone wrote about the low-profile activities between Rawat and his followers in the seventies- and the media had all but lost interest in him. The truth is that Prem Rawat had learned to avoid the media glare by 1976 and kept a low profile. Jossi, Momento, you might be able to keep this kind of information out of this article for a while but not forever. The truth will eventually out and no, your pet-scholar, follower Ron Geaves is not going to be the one to provide the missing facts is he? You are STILL cherry-picking information to suit your POV and sadly Vassayana doesn't seem to see that. Vassayana, don't be flattered into endorsing this article please. I notice a good deal of obsequious language from the followers here towards anyone who can help them win Rawat this coveted GA. That's what TPRF seems to be all about, winning Rawat accolades by hook or by crook.PatW


 * I agree Pat, pending a new TPRF press release once the article is stamped by Wikipedia as GA. And despite Jossi's claim of us "ranting" (which I consider a personal attack) the fact is that Vassayana doesn't know the subject of this article well enough to be able make a judgement as to whether or not GA or not, or even NPOV.  He has to take it on Jossi's good faith that it's okay, when Jossi has a conflict of interest because he works for Prem Rawat in some capacity which he refuses to disclose. Btw, I was thinking that since it's been ten solid  years (enduring EV copyright lawsuits) that Ex-premie.org has been online, so by now it really must be considered a reliable source for purposes of this article. It's a very stable website, and it is used by all the cult-awareness websites as their reference source for information about the cult and Prem Rawat.  Be well, Cynthia Sylviecyn 19:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (a) I do not work for Prem Rawat; (b) Read WP:ATT. This issue has been discussed already many times, and unless core polices are changed, material from such sites are not deemed reliable as sources for articles in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have repeatedly asked editors to provide input on Rawat's teachings, ashrams etc. at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Teachings. It would seem PatW and Sylviecyn have all the time in the world to criticise me and other editors here for not doing what you claim should be done but no time to find the scholastic material we need for the "teaching" article. I am going to push ahead to make this article conform to GA.Momento 20:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Momento, it took me all of ten minutes to write the stuff on this page today. Everytime I took a look at your "teachings" rewrite, I found it practically incomprehensible.  That's why I haven't taken the time to review it.  There's way too much to say and I don't see the text from where you took it, so it's very difficult to figure out where you started.  In other words, you went off on a without describing in any detail what your intentions were and created a group of huge paragraphs that don't provide the reader with any continuity.  Don't get mad, you asked for a review of it, that's my opinion, in addition to the ridiculous image you paint of the years post 1976 as I described above.  Were you even a premie back then or not involved? Sylviecyn 22:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes you move too fast for us and your pushing ahead amounts to bulldozing everything under the carpet that suits your POV. I'm personally way beyong according you good faith because you can't hide your cynical attitude towards the truth from people who really followed Rawat closely during the seventies like myself. You've deleted or moved so much existing material (that painted a truer picture) that I frankly can't keep up. Why don't YOU find scholarly references to paint a more complete picture since you're so on the case and 'honest'? Show some of the honesty which has been drawn into question for once. Stop trying to make us feel guilty about pointing out what we see as the dishonesties in your 'pushy' work if that's all we have time for. It's better than nothing. It's so frustrating when you lived through and know what happened and you see people like you, clearly committed to playing down the whole 'devotional' aspect of Rawat's teachings which was such a feature of the seventies. This is not just a POV...we're talking about what Rawat said was the most important backbone of his work and which persisted FOR YEARS, and furthermore could be substantiated. As I said I don't know of any scholarly references to ashrams but I fail to see why we can't use Divine Light Mission publications as references to illustrate the tone of Rawat's teachings at that time. Can we do that? I'd be very happy to seek those out as refence if we agree it's ok. Vassayana? Anyone? PatW


 * GA status is given to articles that meet the criteria stated in WP:GA?. Will this article ever meet that criteria? Maybe. It will all depend on people contributing toward that goal, rather than once a week rant in these pages about their personal opinions. See What Wikipedia is not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I am working on a very slimmed down version of the bio part of the article, based on Momento's suggestions. I hope when done it will meet the GA requirements of neutrality and density, and also be enjoyable to read. Then we can move on to the Teachings, Press Reception parts etc. I hope to finish in the next few days. In the meantime, could I ask everyone to refrain from altering the existing article? Just for a day or two? It throws my comparison reading into chaos. Ta so much. Rumiton 15:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What "press receptions?" Rawat hasn't talked to the press in 30 years. Sylviecyn 19:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, I used a sloppy phrase. I meant the way the serious press has received his message.Rumiton 11:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to get the image back under the 1980s and '90s section? Rumiton 15:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments. The assertion that I was not previously familiar with the subject of the article is entirely correct. I became familiar with the subject by reading the article, reading the talk pages, checking the sources and doing a little research of my own. Sylviecyn and PatW, I understand you both may have personal experiences regarding the subject, but we need reliable sources to back up such claims. Remember, Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiable facts, which are not the same thing. That being said, I have not commented about the use of sources in the more recent versions of the article, because it still needs to undergo a lot of revision. Unless I've stated otherwise, you can consider the criticisms I stated in my GA review to stand. Acknlowedging progress does not mean acknowledging the repair of all issues. It's just noting that progress is made. PatW, I would ask you to assume good faith and remain civil regarding my involvement with this article. Answering your question about using primary sources (DLM's own material), it should be OK, but you must be very careful in using primary sources. You should not provide your own commentary on those sources in the article text or use editorial language in their presentation. However, if a secondary reliable sources provides a commentary regarding their content, you may use that as a source. Be well all!! Vassyana 22:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Vassayana. I regard your positive response regarding the use of primary source material as a potential quantum leap forward for this article. Maybe Momento and Jossi are not so disposed to research these sources since, being the obedient followers they presumably are, they will not want to ressurect any past publications. I heard that Prem Rawat recently asked that followers hand in these seventies DLM magazines so that they could be destroyed. So before those who dare go and source any remaining old DLM magazines to provide the necessary references do so, I invite Jossi and Momento And Ruminton to indicate that they will  not resist the use, in principal, from henceforth of such material  provided that care is taken and we do not insert any innappropriate commentary. PatW


 * For those that don't know, we've been through a period with this article when editors used "Primary sources" to push their POV. As the Wiki policy says - "Primary source material that has been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of attribution in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse primary sources. The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47) for his followers, because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted. Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge". Abuse of this policy led to edit and counter edit ad nauseum. And eventually it became necessary to rely on what independent scholars have said rather than the whims of editors. PatW why don't you put your Ashram material on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Teachings.Momento 23:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again. Momento is actually saying that if people can't research the primary sources easily we can't use it! And guess what.. Prem Rawat asked all that material be destroyed! How convenient for a revisionist POV. Talk about pushing a 'POV' You are manifestly bending over backwards to exclude material which would balance the article. That's dishonest. Are you suggesting that highly significant information about his teachings during the seventies doesn't belong in this article? Anyway your Bible analogy is flawed. The difference is that Jesus is dead. Rawat can account for his words from the seventies which frankly don't need any interpretation whatsoever. For example information about numbers of ashrams, him saying how it is his top priority, ashrams are to be the backbone of his work etc. Of course 'DLM's own material' also includes cassette tapes that they produced and sold at the time containing Rawat's speeches. Some of these hold valuable insights as to what his 'seventies' message was most significantly about. Also Vassayana, I would ask for your clarification on one other matter. Jossi has rejected the inclusion of DLM published material on the grounds that the only place we could find it reproduced was the ex-premie website which is apparently not a reliable source. These DLM materials existed and we can definitely find some to support, for instance the historical fact that during the seventies encouraging followers to surrender to him in ashrams was a highly significant priority for Prem Rawat. If they existed does it matter where we find them? I mean how far is one expected to go to prove the existence of these publications? My point is we can refer to the content of these magazines and tapes without having to refer to ex-premie.org or anywhere in particular.PatW


 * No PatW what I'm suggesting is that Rawat's teachings should be covered in a separate article titled "Teachings of Prem Rawat". This article should be a bio of PR.Momento 23:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Pat, can you please cool off a bit? If you have material that you want to add, why don't you do as others are doing? Bring the material and discuss it here. Complaining about your perceptions of others again and again, is not helpful (to say the least). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, here is my current attempt. I have tried to cut this down to a pure biography, about PR, not all the stuff that has surrounded him, we can look at that next. This is going to swell this talk page up, so if you would all prefer me to paste it elsewhere, tell me so. Rumiton 15:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Moved to Talk:Prem Rawat/Bio proposal ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail on the head calling it a 'pure' biography. It's so 'pure' it's imbalanced. Frankly, this just reads to me like a worse puff piece than it ever was. I'm incredulous how anyone in their right mind could perceive this as an improvement. It's just all flattering cherry-picked information- re-arranged a bit. I don't think this helps at all move towards a more balanced or honest article. For example, the way the info has been carefully selected makes it look as if Rawat stopped the devotional emphasis and 'Indian trappings' in 1976 when actually at the end of that year is when he announced that the devotional aspect towards him had become too neglected and he asked for ashrams to be set up again across the world. As you should know, this devotional emphasis went on un-abated in intensity until the early eighties when he eventually closed the ashrams. Why don't you clarify that? It would make this article more credible if editors desisted from repeatedly using only references that imply that Rawat wanted to get rid of the 'devotion to him' and the rest of the indian trappings circa 1976? That's one-sided use of the available sources. (OK Vassayana I won't use that 'truth' word again). PatW

Jossi, I know I am dreadfully guilty of 'periodic' uncoolness. I know you also feel compelled to admonish me for 'overly' expressing my frustrations. I will try to answer your question. Please appreciate that my frustration stems largely from feeling horribly overwhelmed. This is (rightly or wrongly) why: I have been told that you are employed directly by Prem Rawat's organisation to maintain his internet presence. Momento and this new Ruminton seem to be doing this as a service to Prem Rawat (paid or otherwise). Faced with such determined biased editors, I'd all but given up the idea of bringing controversial material here since it is repeatedly rejected and I'd virtually conceded defeat. However Vassayana's comments have given me new hope and so I am building up to supplying a lot of new material. But it will take considerable time to source these old DLM magazines and tapes since they are few and far between. In the meantime I think it surely not innappropriate that I continue to criticise this article if I see room for improvement. I would prefer my comments about this article to be perceived by you as a positive contribution, not as unhelpful. Also I am interested to see if you followers can make a good job of doing a balanced article left pretty much to your own devices. So until I'm ready with new material to contribute I 'll just chime in when I think you're going wrong if that's ok.PatW


 * I have already explained my situation. My involvement in this article is less the 10% of my contributions to Wikipedia. I am not being paid by anyone to edit this article. This repeated accusation was made against not only me, but against Momento, and several other editors that edited this article in the past in a manner that detractors did not find supportive of their POV. How many times we need to repeat this? These conspiracy theories are unnecessary, detrimental to collaboration, and useless as it pertains to making this article better. If you are frustrated, try and put yourself in other people's shoes. I am frustrated by the continuous complaints from you that does nothing to improve this article. Have something substantial to offer behind your opinions on the subject?, that would be wonderful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The percentage of your total Wikipedia article contribution is not the point, Jossi. You are the major contributor to, and watchdog of this article, and you boss people around here all of the time as if you are the one to give final approval.  We're mostly middle-aged adults, Jossi, just like you, and we don't need someone behaving like a grammar school hall monitor telling us we're behaving incorrectly.  You are continuously trotting out guidelines and policies to the point of wikilawyering, and if the policies don't suit you, well then you work on the guidelines, including the wikipedia Conflict of Interest article, which I think is another conflict of interest.  You have a stated conflict of interest that you wrote about on this website saying you work for a "related organization." So, in other words, you work for Prem Rawat.  All the "related organizations" support his work so if it's full time it's pretty much the same thing.  If you work on Prem Rawat's websites, you're working for him.


 * Now, Momento writing a whole new "Teachings" article, when you merged the former existing "Current teachings of.." into this article last May! Also, why is "A voice for peace" website a dead link, except for just a few pages on that website that are used as a primary source here, that can be searched on the Way Back Machine?  Know anything about the "related organization" websites?  Are you employed in any capacity as a publics relations person for Rawat or any of the organizations?  You see, the reason I suggested an outline for proceeding on the article was to perhaps foster some cooperation and coordination.  But no...you dismissed it and now everybody's going off half-cocked and willy-nilly and doing complete (quite bad) rewrites.  Jossi, you are always reminding everyone about all the research and work done on this article thus far, but I don't see that Andries has been very welcome (or notified?) that the entire article is being redone.   Sylviecyn 02:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Answering your questions (a) I did not merge any articles; (b) for the nth time, my hobby in Wikipedia has nothing to do with my work; (c) You did not suggest an outline, you suggested a rewrite of the lead; (d) All the changes proposed were not done by me, but by other editors; (d) I am not Andries baybysitter, if we wants to participate that is up to him; (e) you come here purportedly to assist with this article, but off-wiki you badmouth me, other editors, and Wikipedia leaving me to wonder if your intentions are to simply to complain and polarize. So, as I offered to Pat, I invite you also to drop all these personal comments, the badmouthing off-wiki, and engage constructively. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Jossi, once again, you've avoided addressing your conflict of interest as an employee of an organization related to Prem Rawat, as well as answer any questions concerning the same. That's not a show of good faith.  Also, to refresh your memory about how you handled the "Current teachings of Prem Rawat" article last May (of 2006) you wrote the following under the heading "Merge."  Once again I ask you, why are you not objecting to Momento's currently rewriting of another "Teachings" article?


 * From Talk: Current Teachings of Prem Rawat: "Unless there are any objections, I will summarize this article into one section and merge it onto Prem Rawat ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)" Sylviecyn 22:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Listen if you're so smart you would have listened to me telling you for ages how dishonest revisionistic and overly-flattering edits looked in this article instead of adamantly arguing that I was wrong. FACT. Now some other more 'important' people come along whom you NEED to impress to get this Good Article form badge, you're all so suddenly obsequiously accepting  the exact same criticicsms I and some other people have being telling you for ages. Perhaps you should acknowledge that my opinions on the subject were in hindsight, extremely substanial. Finally what makes you think people who've criticised this article are 'detractors' eh? I guess that's just because with followers there's this polarised attitude that your're either 'for' or 'against' the Master. Well, in the world I'm in people actually can make balanced judgements believe it or not. I have said that as a former follower I have learned of both good things and bad about Prem Rawat. The fact that I don't consider him a totally faultless super-being does not make me a detractor and I don't think you are assuming much good faith labelling people as such. Until this article has a tone where criticism isn't presented in such a reluctant tone it will look very stupid. Like, it was edited by a bunch of followers who think Rawat is beyond criticism.PatW

It hurts when you are labeled as this or that, right. Then don't do it to others, as you have done (I am not part of a "bunch" thank you very much). No one is beyond criticism, and that is not the issue at hand. All we are trying to do is to have an article that is informative, devoid of personal opinions and based on reliable published sources. The sooner you stop making this article framed as dispute between critics and proponents, the sooner we can resume work on the article constructively. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Your last sentence is an extremely good example of the pot calling the kettle black. PatW
 * Patw, please. If you want to contribute constructively, please do. But continuing polarizing the discussion does not work. That has been my experience in all these articles about which there are strong POVs. Can we drop this and move on? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

YesPatW
 * Thank you (if you could, please sign with four tildes ( ~ ), so that your sig is date stamped). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

PLease have a look at the slimmed down article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal Momento 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The 'Leaving India' section repeatedly mentions Rawat denying claims of divinity to the point of unnecessary emphasis. It is also 'weasely' insinuating that followers see him more as a teacher than as the Lord which is simply untrue as you will shortly find out. Can you shed some light on whether this was the vow that initiates were universally required to make throughout the seventies and into the eighties? Perhaps someone could comment as this needs to be confirmed:<BR> <i>'Oh my Guru Maharaji, I dedicate myself to Your Lotus feet. I am weak and ignorant and am filled with the impurities of this world. Oh Guru Maharaji, please take my mind and purge me of the impurities I possess. Reveal to me the Knowledge of all knowledge. Strengthen me, uplift me and reveal the Kingdom of Heaven within inside of me. Bring me from hate to love, from darkness to light, death to immortality. I will OBEY You implicitly and will never reveal this Knowledge to anyone for any reason. I will keep in contact with You through my DEVOTIONAL LOVE, satsang, meditation and service. Thank you my LORD for everything.' </i><BR> The section reads like a clumsy attempt to blame followers for imputing Rawat with divinity. Again this is an example of current editors stressing a particular POV which happens to co-inside perfectly with POV asserted in The Prem Rawat's Foundation's current published material and yet runs completely contrary to the POV of critics. In fact it could be seen as a crafty attempt to insert a refutation of the many allegations that Rawat encouraged followers to see him as a Divine authority.PatW 09:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The "Leaving India" section does not "repeatedly" mention Rawat denying claims of divinity "to the point of unnecessary emphasis". It mentions Rawat's denial just ONCE. Is this what happened in the 70's PatW, you just made stuff up according to what you wanted to hear? And I didn't "insinuate" anything. Collier is an excellent resource being the only book written by a premie at the time and Downton's book Sacred Journeys is the most thurough scholastic treatment of Rawat. You may have sincerely believed "that Guru Maharaj Ji is the Lord of Creation here in the flesh to save the world. But those who knew him a little better than that related to him in a more human way... to them he was more of a teacher, a guide, a co-conspirator in their personal pursuit of a more heavenly way of life". I don't believe that vow was in the ashram manual.Momento 11:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of the those lines look familiar to me, but not the whole thing. I sat in on probably 20 Knowledge Sessions in the seventies, and while I do recall some quite peculiar Indian stuff, which was, I know but can't prove, the personal property of the mahatma involved and was not used by others, that incantation or whatever you might call it, was not part of it. Not in Australia anyway, so it was not "universally" used. Though as Sylvia points out, we may not even be on the same planet. Thanks for that Sylvie, I like the thought that we and the country that gave us the Iraq War may barely be in the same solar system. :-) Rumiton 14:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Then again, I have to take some of that back. They gave us Homer Simpson, too, one of my all-time favourite people. Is this digressing? Oh, it is? Sorry. Rumiton 14:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Have it your own way Momento. Don't say I didn't tell you when you fail your GA. That vow was not for ashram members BTW. It was required by everyone who received Knowledge. As a matter of fact my brother was so scared by this vow (as a teenager in 1974) that he left the room and suffered huge mental guilt and anguish. I made that vow the same year which I actually kept believe it or not. My question was when was this vow dropped. I suppose it must have been before you were initiated otherwise you wouldn't have thought it was for ashram premies. Don't worry I will clear up all this stuff about the ashrams over the next year. I've heard a rumour that an independent film maker is considering making a documentary about Prem Rawat. Let's hope they go ahead. They'll hopefully be interviewing many ex-ashram members for their stories- and this time they won't be chosen by TPRF! When all this comes to pass your version of events is going to look a bit..what's the word? dishonest? conservative with the truth?PatW 14:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, Pat. If new material emerges, that material will be assessed in the same manner we asses all new material for this article. Until that time we shall use whatever material is available to us about the ashrams, and by that I do not mean our personal experiences. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Momento, you ask "Is this what happened in the 70's PatW, you just made stuff up according to what you wanted to hear?" My answer is absolutely not and that is why I am SO offended by people like you re-writing not only Rawat's history but in a way mine, in as much as I followed Rawat's teachings very closely and carefully since I was 17 years old. I am now 50 and I feel strongly that I would be morally lacking and it would be wholly unethical, and a negation of my commitment to truth, to allow you to perpetrate this false impression about Prem Rawat without raising objection. I was a real seeker of truth aged 17 and that was my commitment and still is. I make NOTHING up according to what I wanted to hear. As a matter of fact I found it deeply troubling sometimes myself taking on board some of the very heavy stuff Rawat said. But I took him at his word and never listened just to others. There is plenty of transcribed speeches from the time that put the lie to your revisionist POV. I actually know it is a very non-divine and prosaic lie that he did not encourage people to see him as Divine. The fact is he spoke out of both sides of his mouth denying it occasionally whilst allowing people to treat him and worship him as a Saviour. You just quote the times he denied it. That is dishonest. PatW 14:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * PatW, spare me your "commitment to the truth". In a previous post you said "The 'Leaving India' section repeatedly mentions Rawat denying claims of divinity to the point of unnecessary emphasis". When I pointed it out that it didn't, that Rawat's claim was included only  once, you just ignored it. No retraction, no apology, no admission of the truth. Look how self confessed premie Rumiton deals with a mistake "Pardon me, I used a sloppy phrase. I meant the way the serious press has received his message". What a contrast! And you should read Downton's Sacred Journeys before you make another claim about my bias.Momento 19:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If an apology is due then it is for maybe not being clear enough. Obviously you missed my point. What I was endeavouring to explain was that The "Leaving India' section leans heavily towards making the case that Rawat did not claim to be Divine. It does this  1) by imputing others  (the Mahatmas were to blame for this impression. 2) He denied it himself and 3)  People who know him better 'know that's not so. That's three different sentences (see below). Either way there's tons of material available which shows exactly why people thought he was Divine and it had nothing to do with Mahatmas or knowing him better or him 'denying it', but everything to do with his own teachings. (which you plan to remove to a separate article apparently!) As I said, I can find material to show this in due course. So the following are the three times that I think read as "a crafty attempt to insert a refutation of the allegations that Rawat encouraged followers to see him as a Divine authority." <BR> 1) "During these years, claims of divinity made by the Indian mahatmas, his family, and some followers were reported by the media.["<BR> 2) "Rawat denied claims to be divine in several interviews given to the press and on television."<BR> 3) "In an autobiographical book by an early follower who was quite involved with the DLM in the early 70s, Sophia Collier writes, "There are those who sincerely believe that Guru Maharaj Ji is the Lord of Creation here in the flesh to save the world. And then there are those who know him a little better than that. They relate to him in a more human way... to them he is more of a teacher, a guide, a co-conspirator in their personal pursuit of a more heavenly way of life." Also the use of that last quote from Sophia Collier is weasely by Wiki standards because there is no clarification as to how many people "know him a little better than that'" but in this context (within several sentences that emphasise the argument) the implication becomes that people that believe he is the Lord of Creation are in the minority. In fact I'd imagine that in Colliers context the suggestion would've certainly been the opposite. PatW 21:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Weasely" PatW? Collier doesn't suggest ratios in any shape or form. It is James V. Downton, who interviewed followers over a six year period, who says that "in 1976 the majority of premies saw Rawat primarily as their "spiritual teacher, guide, and inspiration". You're welcome to find a scholar who contradicts Downton.Momento 23:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is 'weasely.' This quote is out of context and with bits of the original text missing and the editors words inserted. Neither can the original context be seen in the highly 'snippped' reference bit below. What is not made clear is that very specifically in 1976 (which is the specific year Downton is actually referring to) Rawat was encouraged by his senior advisors to play down the Divine image. And he did this (which accounts for Downtons comments perfectly) but later STRONGLY resisted this change/trend at the end of '76 and re-established the emphasis on him being the central authority and brought back the emphasis on devotion to him, which persisted unabated until the eighties. Whether Downton goes on to describe this or not, you have not put that bit in. If a scholar did not report on this period then we will use the many primary sources that exist to set the record straight. You have the book. Does Downton go on to describe 1977 onwards? I guess I 'm going to have to get the book.PatW 23:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

PatW, I responded to the GA comment that the "article is bloated, or simply too long" by removing heaps of redundant stuff and not adding any fresh material. And I have been asking editors to get involved with the proposed slimmed down version at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal for weeks. All you do is complain that it isn't right. Read Downton, there's plenty about the devotional revival after '76 that would be good to include a sentence or two. More detail can be included at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Teachings. Stop relying on me and others to do what you want to do.Momento 00:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Do I detect a little cyber-tear? O please let it be so! Honest regret!PatW 01:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That was unneeded. Let's keep these discussions to the point, can we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Still moving
New heading to help navigation.Momento 23:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Pat, All of us view history through the filter of our own bias or "POV" if you prefer the Wiki parlance. There is no such thing as "non-POV" in my opinion. I would be as uncomfortable about your version of history as you would be about mine, and I don't think there was anything "heavy" in anything he said in the 1970s or any other time. However, the discussion pages are not intended to be an outlet for catharsis or for discussion of my personal reaction or yours. Within the straight jacket rules of this place, editors are encouraged to produce a non-POV article. I think the current article is excessively negative with an overemphasis on PR's first 10 years in the West, and criticism that emerged from that era. By comparison, his humanitarian initiatives, the many awards and accolades that he has received especially over the last 10 years are given scant attention. Thats my observation. I did not come here to criticize you; I came here in the hope that eventually a fair and balanced article might emerge.--Gstaker 16:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I agree about POV. However I don't believe you can possibly never have heard the term 'Heavy Satsang'. I remember many occasions when Maharaji's speeches were described exactly as such. It was accepted as welcome admonishment from a loving Lord actually. Anyway he gave some famously heavy 'satsangs' where he got quite cross with premies and sure rubbed in their shortcomings. I think you might find my version of history fairer than you probably now think. I want to be fair too and I'm very happy to hear you have that aspiration too. Thanks. And I have no problem that his accolades and humanitarian efforts are described. PatW 21:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

<B>USE OF PRIMARY SOURCES SUCH AS "DIVINE LIGHT" MAGAZINES.</B><BR> With regard to our discussion on the use of DLM materials (primary sources), and pending my intended use of these to improve this article. I would like to address a 'sticking point' brought up by Momento who wrote this: <BR><i> "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge". Abuse of this policy led to edit and counter edit ad nauseum. And eventually it became necessary to rely on what independent scholars have said rather than the whims of editors" </i> There is absolutely no problem for people to easily check magazines such as 'And it is Divine' 'Premies' and 'Divine Times'. These magazines are readily available in many libraries. I have found plenty already. In the UK for example there are numerous places where one can view these very publications such as the Bodleian Library, The British Library and so on. Documents are not always available for loan (so as they can't be stolen or lost to posterity) but can be viewed  and copied. So we will not be abusing the policy to which she refers by using the magazines and we do not need to "rely on what independent scholars have said " for this reason.</i> PatW 21:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue, Pat, is not only the availability of these sources, if what you say about being available for consultation in UK libraries is true (And I trust you that it is). The issue is the use of primary sources in articles. We can extract a quote here and there, but that is all. Otherwise you will be violating the policy of no original research. "So", you would say, "we can quote from these primary sources, can't we?" Not really... As you cannot publish the complete magazine, you will need to select what to quote. And when you do that, you (or I, or any other editor) could simply selectively cite one sentence instead of another, and by that fact assert a specific POV about what PR was saying, and without its context. That is why in in Wikipedia it is said "use primary sources with caution". When using secondary sources, what we are doing is taking the research of notable authors and report their viewpoints, under the assumption that they have read the primary sources available and made their synthesis of them in their published work. You may want to become familiar with WP:ATT, in which these distinctions are explored. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I read it and I get all that. We could abuse the use of primary sources but we wont! We can use the Primary Sources to paint a fair picture. I don't think using only secondary sources has made this article particularly interesting or balanced. That may also have something to do with the POV of editors who "select what to quote" from secondary sources. Now if a Primary Source provides missing information that cannot be possibly conceived as insignificant to the article and adds to the article in a relevant way then why not include it? To find these magazines just go to http://copac.ac.uk/ and search. PatW 23:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So, if you read it all, you may have understood the reason for caution. Balance as it pertains to Wikipedia articles, cannot be based on interpretations and/or selectively citing primary sources. When citing secondary sources, we use footnotes to provide the material cited. That, of course, cannot apply to primary sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but why can't we use footnotes in this case? We could put in a direct link to the library order page for that publication too. Anyway look at the Downton footnotes.. they are chopped about with selected bits missing. How helpful is that? Ultimately people need to be able to check the book itself.PatW 00:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What selected bits are missing from Downton (check Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars)? I have the book and can add them if you wish. Downton's book is widely available, not just available in a college University in Ireland or Scotland. A direct link to that library would be useful if we quote from these 4 magazines listed there, but we still have the problem of quoting a primary source, without readers having easy access to the full text as in the case of secondary sources that are widely available. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Come on Jossi! Are you saying that magazines that are held in hundreds of libraries are not widely available? Seriously I've just spent the afternoon with a scholar who explained that there are many libraries in all major countries that have literally almost everything ever published available for research - in fact exactly this purpose....and access is NOT restricted to scholars although in a few cases you need to be a member (my friend has a library card for the British Library for instance). If you go to that link I gave you and search for say 'Divine Times' you will find plenty. We found a complete set from 1975ish -1980 I think. The fact is these sources are irrefuatably reliable and they are in every country. TPRF might think they've erased history by destroying what they could get hold of but I'm afraid that was a naive and vain hope. These magazines are still readily available to anyone and always will be. I could borrow one from a library tomorrow. Vassayana what do you think about this please?PatW 00:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Pat, as I'm sure you are aware, there are primary sources currently linked throughout this article as it stands. Examples of those are:  the Elan Vital website, The Prem Rawat Foundation website, Prem Rawat/Maharaji's personal website, The Keys website, and all other current websites that support Prem Rawat in the present day.  Therefore, there is not any logical argument that the same organization, Divine Light Mission (since renamed Elan Vital) and it's publications cannot also be used through your excellent library system.  I'm quite amazed at the treasure trove of these materials held in the UK.  Obviously you will use these sources with good balance.  Good work!  Sylviecyn 09:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I loved your Time addition. I guess this why a serious article would prefer scholar's opinions.Momento 10:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I was just referring to the link you placed above which showed just four or five items. The British Library may carry a few issues, but I have not checked. Nevertheless,  my argument about primary sources, stand. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

From above - PatW, I responded to the GA comment that the "article is bloated, or simply too long" by removing heaps of redundant stuff and not adding any fresh material. And I have been asking editors to get involved with the proposed slimmed down version at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal for weeks. All you do is complain that it isn't right. Read Downton, there's plenty about the devotional revival after '76 that would be good to include a sentence or two. More detail can be included at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Teachings. Stop relying on me and others to do what you want to do.Momento 00:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it seems my complaining gets results, that's 'right' enough for me. I'm not relying on you, I'm asking for you to clarify your work. I don't have that book either..you do.PatW 00:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

In any case, Pat, you have not presented the material that you want to add. Without it, this discussion is not useful. Say what you want to add, provide a source that editors can check, and we can discuss, sure. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's useful you old silly! You've learned a lot tonight about libraries for a start! No Jossi there are many more libraries and it seems, the entire catalogue of DLM publications are available to those who want to see them. I have been assured of this. What argument about Primary Sources of yours "still stands"? I'm not arguing with you about using primary sources without caution. As Vassayana has pointed out, we can use these sources with caution. It's as simple as that. There is no hard rule to say we cannot. You've not argued against that I notice. And yes please do check the Downton book to see if he goes on to describe the shift back to devotion in 1977. You've go to agree that the way Downton's quote is represented does not make it clear if he was referring specifically to just 1976 (end of) which I suspect is the case. I see the book was from 1979 so he has to say a lot more.PatW 00:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I will check Dowtons' book. As for the material you want to add, as I said before, sure, bring it and it can be discussed as we are discussing any other material, with the caveat of caution as per policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)