Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 25

Simplification and Encyclopediafication (Polishing)
Seems to me like time for the above process. Should include removal of redundancies and clumsy phrases, a general blending of the tone so it is neither hostile nor promotional, and an overall move towards a more encyclopedic style. Suggestions please! Rumiton 08:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back to Edit This Page, Momento. I like what you have done today. One point though, the phrase "...abandoned the traditional Indian religious trappings in which the techniques originated." Do we have a source who says the techniques "originated" somewhere? Rumiton 12:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Also I looked up the word trappings, surprisingly it means "an ornamental horse's harness." I can see it as an appropriate word for a researcher in setting a slightly intimate tone for a document, but maybe we can find a more appropriate term for a Wikipedia article. Thinking. Rumiton 13:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Melton (44) ..."Maharaji had made every attempt to abandon the traditional Indian religious trappings in which the techniques originated".Momento 19:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hhmm, then I suppose we must say that, or something like it. It seems clear that Melton, like most of us, was unaware of the word's actual meaning, which is something like a decorative hindrance. He would not have linked it to traditional otherwise. It seems to me he was right though; the Indian context was a decorative hindrance to Prem Rawat's work if ever there was one. Maybe there will be a way to put all this coherently. Rumiton 06:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Melton's use of "trapping" was deliberate. Indian religious trappings are second only to Roman Catholic religious trappings.Momento 10:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No argument there, though I have no RC experience to compare. It's just that... look mate, I'm pedantic, right? If he had said the trappings of traditional Indian religion I would have no problem. But piling up the adjectives -- traditional, Indian, religious -- before the noun -- trappings -- implies that it was a traditional, Indian and religious thing to wear an ornamental horse's harness -- or that Melton didn't actually know what the word meant, or that he was lousy at syntax.


 * This project must be nearly finished if the discussion has come to this. :-)  Rumiton 11:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * :P The meaning you cite is archaic and specialist. The general use of the term simply means "articles of dress". Usually it is preceded or followed by an adjective or a descriptive phrase. It carries a sense of clothing oneself in, or being a direct link to, the description. I think trappings is a perfectly appropriate word and I'd be hard pressed to think of another suitable synonym that does not either lose the appropriate connotations or cross into a world of POV. ("Garb" is about the closest alternative, in my view. Words like "costume" carry an implication of "putting on", for example.) Vassyana 19:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I go for the Oxford American Dictionary's version. Trappings: the outward signs, features, or objects associated with a particular situation, role, or thing : "I had the trappings of sucess". • a horse's ornamental harness.Momento 21:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at the Lede afresh, I'm thinking we should contain the 70's in the second paragraph and make the third para 80s/90s/recent.Momento 22:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Something like - In the 70s Rawat traveled out of India to take his message globally. Within a few years tens of thousands of followers were attracted, largely from the hippie culture, and dozens of Indian style ashrams were established. His marriage to a Westerner in 1974 caused a permanent split with his family and he began to remove the Indian aspects of his teachings. In the early 80s he dropped the title "guru" and abandoned the last of the Indian influences.
 * Rawat continued touring and teaching as "Maharaji" and in 2001 set up The Prem Rawat Foundation which distributes his message in eighty-eight countries via print, video and television, as well as spearheading worldwide humanitarian efforts." Momento 22:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of making the Lead Section short and punchy, but were there not objections to that before? Something about a minimum size?


 * ...take his message globally doesn't quite do it for me. Have to think about that.


 * Also ...abandoned the last of the Indian influences. Does one abandon an "influence"? How about...ummm...trappings?


 * Also I think the objection has been raised that PR did not "set up" or "establish" things like TPRF personally, so we need to find a way to describe his connection to them. Rumiton 07:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's a minimum lede but a maximum of four paras. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_section. I think that five sentences to take the reader from June 71 to May 74 is too much. You're right it needs to be better written.Momento 08:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * How about - "In June, 1971 Rawat left India to speak in London and Los Angeles, where he was the subject of substantial media attention. By 1973 Rawat had visited Japan, Australia, Europe and South Africa and tens of thousands of followers were attracted, largely from the hippie culture, and dozens of Indian style ashrams were established. His marriage to an American follower in 1974 caused a permanent split with his mother and family, and from this point Rawat and his teachings became more Western. In the early 1980s he stopped using the title "guru", closed the ashrams and abandoned the traditional Indian religious trappings in which the techniques originated".Momento 11:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The statement "and from this point Rawat and his teachings became more Western" is somewhat contradicted by several reputable sources i.e. Downton, Kranenborg, Hummel and Björkqvist, K (1990). The latter stated
 * "During the latter half of the 70's, the movement clearly returned towards greater world-rejection, although perhaps not reaching the same level as in 1971-73. The millenarian ideology had lost its credibility owing to a slowdown in the expansion rate, and the millenarian jargon gradually disappeared completely. Emphasis was placed on devotion to the guru, ashram life was again encouraged, and satsang meetings were arranged every evening."
 * Andries 17:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"Somewhat contradicted" doesn't quite make it in an encyclopedia. And "Western" has nothing to do with "world rejection". Did you read the sentence that followed " In the early 1980s he stopped using the title "guru", closed the ashrams and abandoned the traditional Indian religious trappings in which the techniques originated"Momento 23:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What about the mediation? The mediator is saying that you have abandoned the mediation. I would suggest that you engage with the mediator if you intend to continue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not have time due to circumstances. I have requested the mediation case to be re-opened again. Andries 17:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Next time, dropping a short line about the reasons for lack of participation will be useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

DECA
So looking through the confusing information about this business, which I had never heard of until a few years ago, does ANY reputable source say anything interesting about it, or about Prem Rawat's relationship with it? If not...the Axe! (Note the British spelling.) Rumiton 12:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems like there are no objections, so I will remove the DECA stuff from the article tomorrow. Rumiton 11:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Prem Rawat's role in founding the company is clear in the article. The information is cited to two reliable sources. It is an example of his business ventures, and an oft-cited one. I do not see why this information should be removed. Vassyana 19:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that we have sources, Vassyana. One source is info about the sale of that company, with no mention to PR. The other, Cagan's book, does not mention DECA at all, just the fact that a Boeing 707 was purchased and refurbished:


 * In the spring of 1979, an old Boeing 707 was acquired that had a long enough range to accommodate his extensive travels  and enough space for his family and the people helping with his  tours. The aircraft underwent extensive renovations in Miami  before becoming operational in 1980. pp.222
 *  In June of 1980, the refurbishing of the Boeing 707 was completed. To be able to fly it as the captain, he acquired various aviation licenses including his private pilot license, a commercial pilot license, and an air transport pilot license. During 1981, his efforts were rewarded as full access to the 707, a capable aircraft, enabled him to travel to forty different cities and speak on 120 separate occasions. He crisscrossed North America four times that year, touring South America, Europe, India, Nepal, Australia, New Zealand, and Malaysia.  pp.228


 * I think that it will be good to keep the mentioning of the 707 as per the source, and delete the mention to "DECA" and the other source that does not mention PR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)


 * After review, you're quite right. The only consistent information I can find on this is from ex-premie sites, without any references to review. Vassyana 00:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There wouldn't be any references Vassyana, because ex-premies are the only sources willing to talk about DECA (and related corps.), plus NRM scholars don't tend to interview former members of cults for their research. Like I said, DECA was highly secretive amongst the cult-members at the time, and apparently continues to be a part of Rawat's history that's not discussed by current members.  It's not surprising that DECA is not mentioned in the Cagan book or scholarly sources, or that some current followers never heard of it until recently, if at all.  It was an enormous deal at the time for Prem Rawat and DLM members, because Rawat moved to Miami Beach from Malibu because of that project, he was at the premises at least once per day (usually more), DLM headquarters office and staff were moved to Miami Beach from Denver, and hundreds of members of U.S. ashrams were sent to DECA to work there for no wages.  In addition to the DECA premises being used for the reconfiguration of the B707, Rawat's fleet of luxury cars was garaged there, "One Foundation," Rawat's favorite premie rock band had a recording studio there, his Holi water gun was kept and worked on there, and Rawat also held his intensive IDP programs (Initiator/Instructor Development Program) there at the satsang hall on the DECA premises.  Sylviecyn 14:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Those polemics are not useful, Sylvync. We do not discuss the controversies regarding former members testimony, are we? So, be cautious in making such statements, and avoid using these pages to make assertions such as "former members of cults", as it is highly inflammatory in its implication. Let's focus on reliable sources and what is available in them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You're entitled to your opinion, Jossi, but I wasn't trying to be political or controversial. I'm just telling the plain old truth as I saw it with my own eyes and experienced it back in 1979 and 1980, on the DECA premises where I worked for Mr. Rawat.  You weren't a premie then so you really don't know what went on there.  I do know, quite well, what went on there. There's nothing wrong about telling the truth, even if it isn't useful to Prem Rawat and yourself.  Sylviecyn 19:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sylvie, I can't work out what, if indeed anything, you are trying to say about DECA. You claim to be boldly telling the truth ("...what went on there," etc.) but you aren't saying anything even worth reading, let alone "useful" to anybody. Commercial confidentiality is to be expected, but what were you doing there to make you feel so furtive? Torturing iguanas in the basement? There is no secret about DECA. A good friend of mine who worked there, probably with you, who passed away about 18 months ago, once told me quite a lot over a bottle of wine, as we exchanged old-time stories with laughter. Seemed like he had a great time there, as did others I know. I think it is time you accepted that even if your personal reminiscences were a great deal more colorful, they are not pertinent to Wikipedia. Rumiton 08:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Furtive? Among other things, I was breaking the law on request at DECA as a regular "business practice."  And one cannot characterize what went on there as "corporate or commercial confidentiality." I know the difference.  Furtive? Accepting Boeing documents (707 specs) that had been smuggled out of the Boeing Seattle by a premie and shipped to the project to save DECA money. And photocopying them for Maharaji personally.  Furtive?  Processing premie divorces out of the DLM offices with a DLM lawyer so one or the other of the premie couple could be free to move into the ashram and work at DECA for no wages.  Some couples had kids. Watching many, many premies breath in soup of toxic chemicals without any breathing apparatus protection, and watching them getting very sick.  There was no workers comp. insurance at DECA to provide for a safe working environment.  Most premies, myself included, had a great time at Deca, thinking we were at the center of the universe where Lord spent all his time.  Hey, you asked.  Sylviecyn 10:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I asked. Sorry. It seems like you certainly have some stuff to work through. I am not exactly happy to meet my ashram supervisor from hell in the street these days as well, but I don't blame PR. He was only 15 at the time. People got...let's say...carried away. Or let's say very carried away. Anyway, unless you have some reliable material that connects PR with Deca, it looks to me like we can't refer to Deca in the article, and we shouldn't be raising it here either. This is, after all, a BLP. Rumiton 12:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox and these talk pages cannot be abused as you are doing here. I ask you for the third time to stop. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, boss. Anything you say, boss. Sylviecyn 14:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That was an immature comment and thoroughly unnecessary. Please respect talk page discipline and cut the nonsense. This page is not your playground ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You keep making the same inflammatory comments and baiting as asked you desist from doing. As you know, editors opinion/testimony are not useful for Wikipedia articles. You already know that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe tomorrow we can look at implementing this. I'm going out to dinner tonight. Have to go and change my trappings. :-)  Rumiton 10:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Biographically, the DECA project is significant for reasons that Sylvie has given and as an explanation of how the 707 was sourced and fitted out as it was, Gold toilet and all. To say that personal testimony has no place on a discussion page is ridiculous - there may be no grounds for including the testimony in the article but it clearly offers lines of research which can then be followed to find quotable references. Of course if there are none that's the end of it. But if you feel baited Jossi, I think you need to look to yourself and not anyone else - this is after all just a discussion.


 * --Nik Wright2 13:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Read WP:TALK ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

We haven't been able to find out how the 707 was sourced. The article had stated that Prem Rawat "set up" DECA, but it was shown to be an unwarranted assumption. If you can find out more from reputable sources, please do. Regarding emotional and allegatory comments, please remember that this discussion page is a public place and what we write here must conform to the requirements of a Biography of a Living Person. See WP:BLP Rumiton 14:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the experiences of all editors here are quite real. However, without reliable sources to verify the information, we cannot include the information in the article and actually must remove such claims. If we can provide secondary sources to verify the information, we can include it in the article. On a related note, WP:BLP applies to talk pages, as well as user and project pages, in addition to article space. Without supporting evidence in reliable sources, we are not permitted to make claims whether negative or positive. So, I will politely request that everyone refrain from advocacy, especially when based on personal experience. Let's focus on finding references, identifying unattributable claims for removal and weeding out extraordinary claims so this article can be appropriately compliant. Please try to be cool, civil and friendly. Cheers! Vassyana 20:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Let us not label assertions that do not fit into our belief system or that we do not agree with as extraordinary. That would be too subjective. Andries 20:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that an extraordinary claim can be easily spotted. I a source makes a claim that X is Y, and no other source makes a similar claim, and that claim is contentious, and the articlle is a BLP, then you can easily assert that claim to be extraordinary, for example, and err on the side of caution. Good editorial judgment will need to be applied, though. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That is too subjective. You can label any assertion with only a single source that you do not like as an extraordinary claim. Andries 20:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Claims with a single source contrary to other available sources should not be included. Vassyana 21:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not? Taken into account the very limited number of scholars who have written extensively about Rawat's life, a single source view is likely to be a significant minority at least. Andries 21:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "very limited"? That is an argument that you keep making that is incompatible with the sources provided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can only think of two or three scholars who have written extensively about Rawat's life i.e. Hummel, Kranenborg and Downton. Andries 23:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Date Format
Why do so many Wiki articles internally link dates, eg 20 Jan 2001? Is there any good reason? Rumiton 13:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Date format, will automatically be converted to the time format you have set up in your preferences. SO, 20 Jan (  shows as "Jan 20" in my browser as that is the US format that I have set. Years should be wikilinked only on their first instance. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Restoring criticism of Prem Rawat's lifestyle
I propose re-inserting criticisms of Rawat's lifestyle for which there are multiple reliable sources i.e. Kent, Kranenborg, Levine, Van der Lans. Where shall I put it? Andries 20:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Since this is an active issue in formal mediation, I would recommend you abstain from such contributions until the mediation is resolved. If you feel it is a pressing need, I would recommend you work the changes in a draft version and propose the changes here on the talk page. Vassyana 21:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This proposed change is not within the scope of the mediation so I do not understand why I should abstain from contributions. Andries 21:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Kent speaks PR's message as "banal". Levine's comment is generic and not specific about PR. Kraneborg spoke about a "private life of idleness and pleasure", and Lans spoke about a "charlatan". The first one is not related to PR's lifestyle. The second one is a generic comment. The last two are part of the mediation.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rawat was labelled as "Guru Maha Rip off" in Kent's book. Levine makes the connection to possible exploitation by saying that the leaders (includin the leader of the DLM) live in ostentation i.e. life style. Andries 23:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Kent does not say that. An article in the Ann Arbor Sun said that, which he mentions in his book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, the Ann Arbor Sun was an underground newspaper, associated with anarchism I believe. . ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but the DLM recruited from the leftist subculture, so that is relevant. Andries 23:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant? Kent also describes other extreme viewpoints held by some groups and individuals, accusing PR of Nazism (lol!), comparing ashram life with Mao's China,  Rennie Davis being a CIA operative and in conspiracy with the government to channel criticism of the government way from it and such other nonsense. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to omit that statement because you consider it an extraordinary claim then I agree. Andries 23:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Melton also mentioned this criticism by former members. So we have three English language reputable sources. They may not say exactly the same but they are quite similar. Andries 23:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Melton? Where? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How much reputable sources do you need before a statement that you do not like can go into the article? I count six (Kent, Melton, Lans, Kranenborg, Lammers in HP de Tijd, and Levine). Andries 23:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Melton 1986 Encyclopedic Handbook pp.144-5~"However as the group withdrew from the public eye, little controversy followed it except the accusations of Robert Mishner [sic], the former president of the Mission who left in 1977. Mishner complained that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill and that money was increasingly diverted to Maharaj Ji's personal use. Mishner's charges [...] found little support and have not affected the progress of the Mission."
 * Andries 23:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I already replied to you. Engage in mediation to address the Christian scholars' stuff. Melton's mention can be included in the appropriate place. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Melton is a Christian scholar too according to Momento. I see no reason to confine ourselves to Melton. He is after all one scholar among several. Andries 23:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is what a former member said according to the Washington Post (Feinstein 12 March 1982)
 * ~:'I believed the Guru Maharaj Ji was the Lord and I was created to serve him,' Shivers said. 'I thought deprogramming would be worse than death because I had been told I would shatter into a million pieces if I ever left. I was in psychological bondage. Even after I knew about the Guru's 30 cars and his Boeing 707 with gold seat-belts, I rationalized it.'
 * Andries 00:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention that Paul Schnabel labelled Rawat as spoilt and materialistic in his dissertation about NRMs and mental health "of the people" ("of the volk"). In other words, there are plenty of sources to mention at least something about criticism of his life style. I do not understand how the rew-write by Momento could possibly be considered NPOV when he removed all of this. Andries 00:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ask Momento for his rationale. You can do that during mediation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Teachings
I would like to add that Prem Rawat occasionally refers to non-Indian masters and philosophers such as Socrates, Rumi and Kabir in his discourses. Rumiton 13:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that's useful info. But can you find a source. I'd like to put in something about "service, satsang and meditation" as I believe this was a fundemental teaching but I've never found a source.Momento 22:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Updated Version
Updated version posted at Rawat Bioproposal nr2

Problems addressed: 1. Lack of Rhetorical and Semantic neutrality. 2. Lack of coherence between text and quoted references 3. Lack of balance in spread and number of quoted sources. 4. Lack of coherence between references and Bibliography

Having read through all of the existing reference material I have come to the view that rather than a criticism section in the biography much of the scholarly material would be far more appropriate to the | Techniques of Knowledge article. It seems to me that past editing of the PR articles has led to a confusion of a personal Biography with the history of a belief system, the practice of meditation, and the functional history of organisations. For any progress to be made I think these various strands have to be unwound if articles useful to readers unfamiliar with the territory are to be created.

A good example of the kind of problems that have arisen is the way in which the term Westernisation has been used liberally in previous versions. Without being given a clear context the term Westernisation can be ambiguous, it is certainly true that some of scholarly references use the term but this seems variably to refer to organisational, presentational and social contexts. In a Biography the default reference is to the individual; where the references are from authors who were not writing a biography, great caution has to be taken as to what the relevance is of a specific term to the life story being presented. Does it refer to personal behaviour, or to personal belief, or to activities recommended to others, or to requirements made of individuals, businesses and institutions made from a position of power or influence ?

I understand that it may be painful for those who have had long involvement with the Rawat articles to now get involved in a process of deconstruction but without a careful process of looking at what words actually mean there will never be any stability.

--Nik Wright2 10:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I fear you misunderstand. It is merely painful to read such a pompous convoluted diatribe posing as 'scholarly observation'. Could you possibly have made yourself sound more obtuse and ambiguous? It is just plain, shallow, showing off. Your proposal has nothing to do with process of deconstruction, merely clothing the ex-premie agenda in a new suit. If the speil were not so full of self importance it would be a hilarious example of reverse semantics. Westernisation means the opposite of Easternisation, it's very simple. In the meantime you are right, stability as you seek it is not a likely eventuality. VivK 16:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 11:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * VivK, for your future value to Wikipedia, please avoid posts that verge on personal attacks. By all means attack an editor's work, but not them. I trust this makes it clear.


 * Apart from that...  :-)    Rumiton 11:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok Rumiton, understood. I'm new to this place and need to read a few pages to get the overall picture. I responded instinctively rather than mulling it over. Having read this page, is it just me who detects an incredible lack of warmth, self awareness or humanity from some of these posters? VivK 16:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 11:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's say it gets a little weird at times. :-) again.    Rumiton 12:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, perhaps I should add that no one here can say what they want to say. Encyclopedias can only report what reputable sources say about a subject. We can't say "Hey, I was there and it wasn't like that at all." We are not reputable sources. This isn't all bad, as reputable sources, whose reputation is on the line, are generally measured in what they say. So that is what we are doing here, making sure what goes into the article is well-backed up. You are welcome to join in, if you can accept the situation and the frustrations it entails. Rumiton 12:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from making characterizations and personal remarks about fellow editors, and encouraging fellow editors to do the same, because your comments might be construed as personal attacks, which are not allowed on Wikipedia. Thanks. Sylviecyn 14:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see you had a good time at Deca Sylviecyn, me too. I was invited there from NZ and spent a highly rewarding 2 years in the design shop before being asked to relocate to Malibu for a building project. Sadly neither of our recollections would make the cut here because we are not 'reputable sources'. I must confess my memories are biased, those years being some of the most exciting and instructive of my life. I note with interest that negative bias on past years of Divine Light Mission has a home on a web forum to which two writers here are consistent contributors. I assume Wiki editors are aware of this anomaly. Surely having an extreme bias against the subject matter at hand immediately discounts any valuable input to the Wiki Encyclopedia project? VivK 16:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC) 14:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You're not making news here, ViK. My identity and the fact I post on the Prem Rawat Talk Forum are transparent here.  It doesn't qualify me or anyone else from editing on Wikipedia any more than being a devotee of Prem Rawat disqualifies you or other devotees from making contributions.  However, please note that thus far your only contributions to Wikipedia has to issue personable attacks against me on Gstaker's user-talk page, and then attempt more of the same here against NikW and myself, you might want to reread WP:NPA.  I have no intention of having a tit-for-tat conversation here with you about Prem Rawat, DECA or anything else.  If you want to have a conversation with me, you're free to register and post on the forum. Thank you.  Sylviecyn 13:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just do not forget to refresh your memory about WP:NPA. Personal attacks are unwelcome here, and off-wiki personal attacks against editors you are engaging with are also most unwelcome. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What is Gstaker's user-talk page? I can't find anything by that name. Rumiton 14:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * VivK, you can sign your name by typing four tildas ( 4 x ~).Momento 06:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I read the version but could not find major differences with the current version, besides some some violations of WP:OR, and what seems some specific POV pushing. Details on organizational aspects should be listed at Divine Light Mission and Elan Vital, and not here. Here we need to have just basic info. The section names could be improved upon, but that is not a big deal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jossi. NikW says he has addressed "the lack of coherence between text and quoted references" but did not provide any quoted references for many of the new inclusions, for instance, "Rawat Knowledge" and "his addresses contained references to satsang, satnam and satguru". And the headings are more suitable for an article on the human body, not a human being.Momento 22:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * VivK, personal bias, even if extreme, need not disqualify an editor in Wikipedia. Editors do not express their personal opinions here, nor do they reminisce about their past experiences, however colourful they might have been. Editors do nothing but look through the writings of reputable sources to find things that pertain to Prem Rawat and Knowledge. Biased sources are not acceptable, nor are the extraordinary claims that may be made from time to time by otherwise respectable sources. The guidelines for Biographies of Living People WP:BLP are worth reading if you feel you would like to contribute.


 * You may notice the article is short on material from 1980 to the present. This is because scholars have largely neglected this "organisation-free" era, though it has arguably been his most productive time. Unless we find some sources for this period, we can't do much about this. Welcome to Wiki and Good Luck. Rumiton 10:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Rumiton, you keep repeating your misguided opinions about how Wikipedia works. Statements voiced in reputable sources that you think are biased or that you consider extraordinarry are fine to use, because wikipedia reflects what reputable sources have stated and not your personal opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andries (talk • contribs) 10:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * With regard to the section above, Restoring criticism of PR's lifestyle, could one of the neutral editors please clarify a point for me? How is it that unsubstantiated opinion written by some obscure academic can be regarded as a reliable source? Kraneborg's reference to a "private life of idleness and pleasure" and Lans' reference to PR as a "charlatan" are examples. I am aware that some of this material is the subject of mediation. Thanks in advance.--Gstaker 15:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a question of undue weight. In each case, a single source reports a claim that is not independently supported by another source. Generally, when there is a single source claim for a subject that has many available references (as Rawat and DLM do), it is considered an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary sources. Also, if a source makes a claim contradicted by the majority of sources (such as Rawat being a "charlatan", since most sources present him as earnest), it is explicitly considered an extraordinary claim. You may also want to consider that our living persons policy also takes a dim view of such material (subjective value judgments), especially as enforced. Also, we are encouraged to avoid such characterizations and let the facts speak for themselves. So it comes down to whether or not the editors believe those policies and points are relevant to those specific claims in these circumstances. I hope that help clarifies (at least some of) the objections to the material. Vassyana 17:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Much appreciated.--Gstaker 02:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Vassyana, thanks for your explanation that I think follows a flawed way of reasoning. Here are some objections.
 * 1. There are only few lenthy reputable references on the life of Rawat so it is very difficult to assess what is a majority opinion and not, and so assessing undue weight becomes a largely subjective matter. I can only think of the lengthy reputable by Downton, Kranenborg and Hummel. If you think otherwise then please mention these sources, as I have already requested many times.
 * 2. The statement that Rawat has become a charlatan is not denied by a single source as far as I know. If you think otherwise then please mention where this is denied.
 * 3. Some critisicims of Rawat's life style have been repeatedly been voiced in somewhat different ways by several reputable sources, so this can be restored according to your reasoning. I counted nine differerent reputable sources for criticisms of Rawat's lifestyle or his use of money that say more or less the same things. (Barrett, Kent, Kranenborg, Van der Lans, Melton, Lammers in HP de Tijd, Levine, a former member in the Washington Post by Feinstein 12 March 1982, Bob Mishler as quoted in the Washington Post.) Each of the sources may not be impeccable, but omission or marginalization as group is, such as the article does now, is I think, against Wikipedia NPOV rules.
 * Andries 06:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. Incorrect. There are plenty of sources available on this subject
 * 2. That is a fallacious argument. If there is a claim that XYZ is a charlatan, you do not need a claim that says that XYZ is not. The fact that one person makes a value judgment on XYZ is in itself an "extraordinary claim" and unacceptable on a BLP
 * 3. The criticism on Prem Rawat is included throughout the article. No significant viewpoint one is being "marginalized" in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ad. 1. Incorrect. Name the other lenghty reputableb as I have requested you many times. Please break the silence to avoid the suspicion that you do not answer because you cannot give a reasonable answer
 * ad. 2I The claim is made in two reputable sources and hence fine for inclusion according to WP:BLP. I admit that these two reputable soruces are not independent, because good scholars generally do not plagiarize. But here I only meant to say that a lack of the existence of a denial in combination with the lack of availability of many lengty reputable sources that deal with the subject means that there is no objective proof that the claim is "extraordinary. A counterexample, there a few sources that say that Hitler had gay relationships, but there are many lenghty reputable sources about Hitler that are silent about this subject. The availablity of many lenghty reputable sources can objectively determine what views are minority views and what claims are extraordinary and what are not even if no denial can be found. I meant to say that inclusion and exclusion should be based on objective reasonable standards, not on labelling claims as "extraordinay" based subjective criteria.
 * ad. 3. Where is the criticism of Rawat's lifestyle that and use of money that is voiced in eight different sources? How can this not be omission or marginalization of a signficant view point? Andries 08:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed at length, Andries, and you agreed to engage in mediation about that specific issue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not know what you think that is the subject and scope of the mediation, but I believed it is quite narrow. I can still continue to disagree and edit and make comments here before and during mediation. Why should there be a temporary stop on all this? Andries 06:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Interersting about the 80s Ruminton. Would old magasines be considered reliable sources of reference? I do have some from that era. It was a period of dramatic change for all concerned when Rawat took the unprecedented step of casting away the Indian trappings from the organisation and closing the ashrams, asking people to live normal everyday lives whilst also enjoying the Knowledge he offered. This is when some students fell away, their experience being based upon external trappings, rituals and order. He knew this would happen and that those with a genuine inner experience would thrive more than ever, knowing, perhaps for the first time, that this personal gift was entirely independent of organisations of any kind. Notable too is that Prem's teacher, Shri Hans Ji Maharaj, also had a wariness of organisations helping him in his work, having seen the damage overactive managers could do. Throughout 80s and 90s to now Prem Rawat has steadfastly avoided the same traps by changing the structure around him on a regular basis. But I'm not saying anything you don't know here and I'm sure those lacking an experience will argue ad infinitum about his motives. I can quote from sources - if they are acceptable! Thanks to those who have helped me find my feet here. VivK 02:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * VivK, there is an inherent problem in using primary sources, that is why in Wikipedia we prefer to report on what secondary sources say about a subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok Jossi, so if a magasine is the primary source, does that make us the secondary one?VivK 03:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice try, VivK.  :-)  It might if we were "reputable." To become reputable you need to have a history of acclaimed research into the subject, or similar subjects. You need to have built up a reputation that would be damaged by mistakes or demonstrated biases. That situation makes people careful, and their statements more likely to be true and fair. Rumiton 05:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

So articles in DLM or DUO magasines pertaining to the 80s are not acceptable on Wiki? VivK 14:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Only for non-controversial claims; dates and places, names of people, etc. The main reason is that primary source documents are generally not written by professionals, or intended to stand up to legal scrutiny 30+ years into the future. They are often good hearted amateur attempts to convey the perceived truth of the moment, and it is too easy to quote them out of context. In contrast, professional researchers always (if they are good at it) write with a view to posterity, and intend their words to be clear and quotable. Your DLM magazine articles are usable if a researcher has written about them. Difficult, isn't it? Rumiton 15:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I get it. This is a sphere of professionalism that is not found on other forums. That make me very curious as to what some people think they are doing here, apart from looking for attention.VivK 16:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is not a forum at all, it is a serious encyclopedia. The rules have evolved quickly and with remarkable effect, and when there is a dispute the rules are invoked very seriously. And it works. I personally have come to feel that the Wikipedia philosophy represents a large breakthrough in human understanding. Rumiton 16:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Humanity sure could use that. If a website that is open to the public can keep out thuggery and time wasting mind game players then all power to it. Not sure if I have the literary or intellectual skills to contribute much though.VivK 03:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

so if a magasine is the primary source, does that make us the secondary one?VivK Nice try, VivK. :-) It might if we were "reputable."Rumi LOL Nice to see that this place isn't completely devoid of humor :-) --Gstaker 13:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Editing this article
Editors please note the template at the start of this Talk page requiring that all information be discussed here before being added to the article. Rumiton 11:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, substantial changes must be discussed first according to the template. I only added two sentences. How is that a substantial change? The two sentences (after minor adaptations) are as follows and include the sources. Partial translation of the Dutch language sources are here User:Andries/Prem_Rawat/Non-English


 * Apart from criticism of his teachings, Rawat was also criticized for his use of money and his lifestyle that was sometimes deemed as luxuriuous or considered inappropriate. Criticism has been reported or voiced by religious scholars, writers and several former followers, including, Bob Mishler the former president of the Divine Light Mission.

Please raise objections that refer to policies and guidelines. Andries 13:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You agreed to mediation on these specific aspects. Why don't you pursue it? As for your "Teachings and Criticism" idea. Do you really believe that it is an acceptable title for a section? Editors have incorporated the criticism throughout the article, and we will not start again separating the criticism into its own section. Criticism needs its context and that is what has been already done. In addition, your text is incorrect and lacks context. I would suggest that you get started in the mediation that you agreed to. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I believe that mediation did not include this aspect. Where to put this kind of criticism then? I do not see this kind of criticism throughout the text.  Where is it? Where is it incorrect? What context do you want to add? Andries 14:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The essay Criticism seems relevant here. Andries 14:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That esasy was rejected as a guideline, and in any case it supports different ways to incorporate crticial views in articles. Read the article, Andries. The criticism is voiced there in many places. Here is an example: There is already text: Staff at DLM's Denver HQ were reduced from 250 to 80, and Rawat became financially independent through the contributions of his Western devotees which allowed him to follow the lifestyle of an American millionaire, support his wife and children, and finance the world travel of staff.[34][35]. That is context. As for the mediation, it has been almost a month and you have yet to engage, why? Engage.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the example that you give is not criticism, but a fact. I moved the criticism that I added to personal life as it deals mainly with his life style and personal life. I admit that the essay Criticism is contradictory. This time it is not my fault that the mediation has not started because the case was just recently assigned. Andries 14:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Very cute, Andries. Very cute. Please do not start editwarring yet again. The case was assigned to Danny and was waiting for three weeks. Danny  now is busy with the WMF boar elections, so now it has been assigned to someone else. Engage, and do not start another round of editwars, please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the case has assigned to someone elseo yesterday. At the moment there is nothing to engage in because I see no open requests of questions in the mediation. I will request the scope of the mediation and the participants to be expanded if my recent addition lead to mini-edit wars. Or I will request a new mediation with new participants. Andries
 * That does not fly, Andries. Sorry. You may have misunderstood what mediation is. Engage, and get it over with and stop starting a new edit war, as it has been your custom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How should I engage? I see no open questions or request to me. Moreover I believe that this proposed edit is beyond the scope of the mediation. Andries 15:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How? Easy... There is no dispute that PR is a high net-worth individual and that he has been criticized by not eschewing material possessions. You can start by asking what would be the best way to incorporate that element into the existing text. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This dispute is beyond the scope of the mediation so I ask it here. What would be the best way to incorporate that element into the existing text? Andries 15:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You see, it is not that difficult. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andries, Perhaps an attempt to reason with you might help a little. If, for example, Mischler's claims were substantiated by others, there would be a case for inclusion. However, It seems to be a good example of what Wiki refers to as an "extraordinary claim." That's a wiki euphemism for the colorful term, toxic diatribe. As it turns out, not one other person has substantiated his claims. Even his most ardent (ex-premie) detractors shy away from those claims by Mischler. When someone makes such an extraordinary claim, I think it helps to look at the history of the person making the claim. David Lovejoy reported in his autobiography that Mischler pushed his head into a wall during a dispute about the use of photographs. Another well documented account reveals that Mischler had stopped formally practicing the inner peace techniques taught by PR. The same documented report refers to Mischler as becoming increasingly bitter after he left DLM (or was fired?). The available evidence suggests that we are looking at a man who lashed out in bitterness because he did not get what he wanted. Other claims, eg, that "his opulent lifestyle is supported largely by the donations of his followers" do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact the current article is wrong on that point. He was given share holdings during the 1970s by a few wealthy supporters who were concerned that he should be financially independent. You seem to be obsessed with criticism. Your record of contribution here certainly suggests that. PR has received glowing accolades from numerous academic, government and civic leaders. Much of this material is available on video and by now quite a lot of it would be available in various publications if someone wanted to go digging for it. My point is this: a wiki article should contain verifiable facts, not unsubstantiated opinion either for or against the subject of the article - NPOV right? But perhaps most importantly, why would you want to blacken the name of someone who has (arguably) worked for decades to improve the quality of life for well over a million people worldwide? And why do you feel that the dispute is beyond the scope of mediation? --Gstaker 02:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The criticism voiced or reported here tend to come from academics who study the field of gurus and new religious movements. That is totally different from praise from academics who did not study this field. Andries 04:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you think that the criticism is unsubstantiated then you can write that on your website, but please do not remove well-sourced criticism here only because you do not agree with it. Wikipedia reports what reputable sources say and does not reflect your personal opinions. Andries 04:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is excellent wording to this respect at WP:RS: (my highlight) "Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.", applies here in full. Well sourced is only one element in the equation, Andries. Material added needs NPOVing, context, and compliance with WP:BLP as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is ample evidence that Mishler's criticism was not out of character. His critical attitude is well documented. Apostates are a well-known phenomenon and there is nothing strange or exceptional with that. Andries 04:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not out of character? Really? As an example, this text which comes from Mishler says: "His former officers claimed the Guru had 'a sadistic streak,' and that practices Maharaj Ji employed, theoretically to subdue the ego, included 'stripping devotees, pouring abrasive chemicals on their bodies and into their mouths, administering drugs, having them beaten with a stick or thrown into swimming pools.". Now, what do you think is that? Pure BS, not reported anywhere else in any other source, scholarly or not. But what you want is to pick a specific quote from that source, without taking the responsible stand to say: "that source should not be used". That, in my view, is poor scholarship and poor editorial judgment, and in violation of BLP, V and RS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Crticial statements from Mishler's could be expected from an apostate, so it is not an exceptional claim. There is nothing exceptional about the existence of apostates. I never wanted to to include that sentence, so your remarks are irrelevant. Everything is sourced to reputable sources, so it fulfills all Wikipedia policies. Andries 04:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As said many times already "Everything is sourced to reputable sources" is only one part of the equation. And yes, that source is exactly what an exceptional claim is. You cannot just pick and chose from a source whatever you want, and avoid making the editorial judgment that the source (Mishler) is not a reliable source for that claim in the context of a BLP. Good night. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, Wikipedia editors should make selections. That is called good editorial judgement. The Washington Post is a fine reputable source. Andries 05:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Andries, Yes, I agree that "Wikipedia reports what reputable sources say and does not reflect ... personal opinions" - either yours or mine (NPOV). Nor should a wiki article include unsubstantiated, extraordinary claims e.g. Mischler's. The subject of current discussion, and mediation if it ever eventuates, is now focussed on determining what is and what is not regarded as reputable according to Wiki guidelines. Now, will you please answer my second question, why do you feel that the dispute is beyond the scope of mediation?

FYI, (1) I have not removed any material from any wiki article in more than 12 months. You appear to be jumping to an unjustified conclusion. (2) How much do you know about the fields of study of academics who have praised PR's work? Without doing any research I can name 2 academics who have praised PR, and whose area of study encompasses NRMs. Now, if you don't wish to answer my first question, please answer the 2nd--Gstaker 05:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * One reason why this latest dispute is beyond the scope of mediation between Momento and me is that the former did not revert my edits. Andries 05:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning sadistic torture as one of Prem's techniques to 'dampen the ego' is absurd and laughable Andries. It also seriously questions your credibility as an observer, let alone an editor. Being mischievious by offering such hogwash is pure time wasting and I would ask why. Why are you trying to waste Wiki editor's time with material you know perfectly well is not true? If there was even a hint that such scandoulous behaviour ever took place it would have been headline news decades ago. But you know that perfectly well don't you. VivK 06:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion is largely irrelevant, because I never intended to include this allegation in the article. But to answer you, I cannot know what is true, because Rawat led a life hidden from rank and file followers, according to several reputable sources. Moreover Rawat does not reply to my e-mails to him. How do you know that this is untrue? Were you there at the time? In general, I think that it would be good to simply let the article report what reputable sources have stated and let the readers decide about what is true or not. Andries 16:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I think that would be good, reputable sources. The private lives of well known people are not the subject of Encyclopedias.VivK 03:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course the private lives of religious claimants is relevant. Do you think that the private life of Jesus is irrelevant for Christians? Andries 18:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes the the private life of Jesus is irrelevant for Christians. It is also largely unknown, hence the word 'private'.VivK 15:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Private lives of BLPs are not subjects to be covered in their articles, unless related to their notability. In this case, there are certain aspects that may fall in that category, which we have already done as per the cite above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
 * Reputable sources thought that a lot more of Rawat's life was relevant to Rawat's notability than what is currently in the article. Andries 20:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The discussion, is relevant, because you wanted to use a source that it is obviously unreliable. You cannot pick and chose from sources. Good editorial judgment is needed in this case, and that source should not be used for anything. The other sources related to the high-worth lifestyle as reported by Melton, for example, could be added in the context of the text that already refers to this aspect. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So a source that is generally considered reliable is considered suddenly unreliable because it makes a statement that you consider implausible. Melton also makes statements about the DLM (about DLM's social activities) that I consider untrue. Also Melton does not spell several names correctly including Mishner's name. Does it mean that we cannot use anything from Melton only because I think Melton makes statements that are untrue ? I would argue that this reasoning is flawed. May I remind you that I received support for my opinion on the WP:BLP notice board. You did not even gain clear support on the mailing list of the English Wikipedia when you made a rather carticural portrayal of our dispute (without mentioning the article name Prem Rawat) Andries 18:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Only one single editor commented, and that's all. That cannot be called "support". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Good editorial judgement means that you do not dismiss reputable sources as a whole only because it contains some statements that you consider implausible. If I objected to reputable sources that I think make implausible statements then I think that only 10% of the sources could still be used. I admit that it would be a different matter if a reputable sources is riddled with counter-factual statements but this is not the case for the article in the Washington Post. Andries 19:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Implausible" is not what we are discussing here, Andries. We are discussing a series of statement made by a person, which have not been reported anywhere' else. A minority viewpoint of a person with a massive ax to grind is not a source that can be used in a BLP, period. As per WP:RS relating what is not a reliable source: "Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended. In any case, as I have said already twice above, we can add material from Barret and Melton about the criticism derived from PR's high-net worth. Let's focus on that, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Mishler report was not out of character. He was an apostate. Andries 21:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is Melton still a reputable source according to your reasoning when he makes statement that are untrue, (such about DLM social work)? I think you are blatantly use double standards to assess the reputability of sources which I will never agree with. Andries 19:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Melton is a scholar. His work is reputable. Sure, he mispeled a name. So what? And the DLM social work is not a mistake. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * According to your reasoning untrue or implausible statement make a source unreliable. I do not agree with this reasoning, but at least try to be consistent and fair. Andries 19:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And I would 'really appreciate it  if you can keep comments your personal opinions about my motives to yourself. I have no longer patience and tolerance from these types of personal attacks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (ed conf) which I will never agree - Fine. In Wikipedia we collaborate, discuss, and look for common ground. If you cannot accept that, then maybe you need to reconsider your participation in this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you answer my question to you? Andries 20:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I only wrote that you had blatant double standard when assessing the reputability of sources. That is neither a personal attack nor a comment about your motives. Andries 19:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Andries, I know you from 2 1/2 years of editing WP. You have not changed, and you keep casting aspersions about the motives of others. Keep these comments to yourself, can you do that? And now, if you do not mind, let's focus on finding some wording regarding the criticism related to PR high net-worth. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not do it here and now. Andries 19:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC) I believe that you are sincere but that you have not succeeded at all in being fair and reasonable. Andries 20:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If we cannot agree about a certain text in spite of extensive discussion then I think that is time for futher dispute resolution. Andries 19:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You re-add disputed content after all that discussion? Are you trying to escalate this in purpose? I am sure that you are aware that this type pf behavior will reflect poorly on you on any type of dispute resolution. I will let others address your lack of interest in collaborating and finding a suitable compromise. I think I have done enough. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Disputed? You should have said so. I did not receive a single word of criticism of the main text (two sentences) that I had proposed. Andries
 * I think I have already made many and big concessions. I will make no more. Now it is time for others to make concessions. Andries 22:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I think you are making a mistake. No one editor can hold an article to ransom, and no one needs to appease you in any way or manner. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you see how much I condensed and toned the criticism, though there are so many reputable sources that make trenchant criticism of Rawat? If this is not a big concession and within the rules of WP:BLP then I do not know what is. Andries 23:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't know? If that is the case, you can ask for help. Here:
 * ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why omitting Mishler? Andries 23:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I already explained this. Per WP:RS's "Exceptional claims": "Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Mishler is a well known apostate and mentioned in several reputable sources. His statements were totally in correspondence with his status of an apostate. And why not write concisely who reported or voiced these criticisms? I would be interested as a reader. The passive voice is discouraged in Wikipedia, remember. Andries 23:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never heard the nonsense about a "status of apostate", and I do not think our readers will know the inherent problems of apostasy as it pertains to their testimony. The passive voice can be easily corrected, ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles rely on reputable sources and not about your opinions of the lack of reliability of apostates. Mishler comments can be found in several reputable sources. Andries 00:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Jossi, I think you have a lot to explain when you write that Melton is a reputable source but that Mishler should not be mentioned. Melton reports some of Mishler's criticisms. Your opinions seem contradictory. Andries 01:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, the criticims is not only about luxurious living but also about living a life of idleness, spoilt, materialistic as voiced among others by Jan van der Lans and Paul Schnabel. Andries 23:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Again? Did you forget when you were taken to account for mistranslating your Dutch? See Frances Schonnen comments at User:Andries/Prem_Rawat/Non-English ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I had not finished the translation when Francis Schonken commented. But I do not understand what you are trying to say? Schnabel labelled Rawat as spoilt and materialistic. Andries 00:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not according to Francis:    Indeed, he didn't use the word "shallow". Nor did he use the word "spoilt", which, in the context, is a questionable translation of "verwend". "Spoilt"/"verwend" is e.g. used for children ("spoilt brat", etc.); in the context of the quote above "verwend" is rather "accustomed to luxury", imho. It is opposed to Bhagwan's daily efforts, as far as I read the quote: the Dutch text does not imply that, by comparison, Bhagwan would be "unspoilt". I summarized, like you did, and I think "shallow" an appropriate summary of "verwend"/"materialistisch"/"intellectueel weinig opmerkelijk"/"tot op zekere hoogte geënsceneerd"/... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Completely wrong. There are only two possible translantions for "verwend" i.e. spoilt and pampered. Francis later used pampered. Andries 01:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Completely wrong. There are only two possible translantions for "verwend" i.e. spoilt and pampered. Francis later used pampered. Andries 01:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

<<< I leave you with the above, as I am busy with other articles. Let others comment. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the latest addition as it was completely non-npov and largely from a demonstrably unreliable source. Of course apostates will make extreme and extraordinary claims. They could be referred to perhaps in a blog, not in an encyclopedia. Rumiton 10:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not up to editors to make value judgments about the POV of a realiable, published source. Doing that would be non-NPOV. It's the job of editors to provide reliable sources when writing articles and Andries has done that.  Virtually all of the mainstream press coverage about Prem Rawat was critical of him, which, after all, is the only basis by which Rawat warrants an article, because as an adult, he's not well-known nor famous at all. The Washington Post is a reliable source, therefore, Andries quoting from it isn't NPOV.  The same goes for "apostates."  It's only certain scholars of NRMs that think all apostates are "disgruntled liars."  There are plenty of scholars that don't agree with that idea.  It's only one point of view; there are other points of view about this, but apostasy isnt's the subject of this article.  The job of editors is to report what's been published by reliable sources, regardless if it happens to be critical.  I can't imagine how Bob Mishler, who was president of Divine Light Mission for five years and had close contact with Rawat during five years of his life, cannot be included here, just because you don't believe what Mishler had to say after he left.  Sylviecyn 12:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ignorance of the subject matter of the article doesn't get any more glaring than that. As an adult Prem Rawat is very well known all over the world and has countless awards and certificates of merit and appreciation to prove it. Not to mention grateful students in 80 countries. The fact that this reality is extremely inconvenient for his opponents is probably why such personal opinion appears here.VivK 15:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * VikK, please don't cut up posts as it can cause confusion as to whom wrote what. Prem Rawat is notable for purposes of this article due to his notoriety as a child guru, especially when he came to the west in the 70s.  Currently, the mainstream media never covers him, and the only sources that state he is famous and well-known are his supporting organizations, like Elan Vital and The Prem Rawat Foundaton.  I'm getting a bit impatient with your snide remarks about me and others here.  Please stop using sarcasm and baiting, and also please stop characterizing my posts.  I'm not ignorant about the subject matter.  Please review WP:NPA again.  Thanks. Sylviecyn 17:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Prem Rawat is notable because he is notable, period. That is why there is an article about him. The subject matter of a reputable encyclopedia being 'notable' is in no way connected to mainstream media. EV and TPRF do not say he is famous they merely report what he is doing, as do many other reputable organisations. Your patience level is of no concern. When you are the subject of a Wiki profile, take issue then.VivK 14:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * VivK please aim for more civility. We need to negotiate here to get a mutually acceptable result. We do not have the luxury, if that is what it is, of alienating each other. Thank you. Rumiton 14:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If appearing 'civil' means peppering a piece of veiled hostility with 'please' and thanks' as she does, sure, I can do that. It's just that I am observing levels of hubris not unlike J MacGregor at his 'journalistic' peak and feel it is worthy of note. When someone starts pontificating about the role of editors with - 'It's not up to editors to make value judgments about the POV of a realiable, published source. Doing that would be non-NPOV' - when they are consistently demonstrating an extreme of non NPOV themselves such as - 'The "magazines" on TPRF are vanity pieces, offered to the premies only through TPRF. Therefore, those cannot be used'. Is this not contemptable and worthy of question? I come from a law background where the credibility of a witness is paramount to the case and this 'witness' is troubling my radar. Have also been reading several other Wiki discussions where the level of frankness is considerably higher than here, where walking on eggshells seems de riguer. However, I will endeavour to maintain the high standards you have set.VivK 19:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Eggshells. Yep. Thank you for your understanding. Rumiton 08:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Bob disqualified himself as a reliable source by making extreme statements, unsupported by anyone else who was there at the time, and by making them in a language more appropriate to a divorce court than an encyclopedia. Rumiton 15:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * His statement is confirmed by Hand and Dettmers. Reputable sources do not suddenly lose their reputability only because they make statements that you consider implausible. Andries 16:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Rumiton, the sources are not Bob Mishler, the sources are The Washington Post and Gordon Melton. Both have withstood the test of time since the material was originally published. Unless you can discredit those very reliable sources, what Andries inserted should stand. News organizations like the Post do not publish things that cannot be fact-checked, sourced, and pass legal muster.  And Robert Hand, another Divine Light Mission corporate officer, backed up Mishler's statement, which is also reported in the Post article.  Please stop reverting, Rumiton.  There wasn't any concensus to a "no editing without discussion," invisible message, so that argument doesn't wash either.  You did rewrite the entire article with Momento, you're both adherents, while eschewing  discussion for changes suggested other editors, so...don't forget the "mercilessly edited" Wiki warning.  Thanks. Sylviecyn 17:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We've been through this many times. If we include what newspapers say and individual people's "opinion" then every magazine listed on the TPRF site could be included and the four page interview with Business & Class reproduced in Peace is Possible, as well as any comments from that book could be included. All "personal opinions" have been removed from the article including the following quote from The Times of India - "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." The POV insertion of prefered quotes was the main reason this article was such a mess.Momento 23:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The "magazines" on TPRF are vanity pieces, offered to the premies only through TPRF. Therefore, those cannot be used. I'm discussing serious journalism, not puff pieces and paid-for articles.  I think if the Washington Post thought it okay to publish that article despite the potential controversy, and it has withstood the test of time -- and the article is even online in their archives -- so there's no reason to exclude it.  Gordon Melton is already a source used in this article, so there's no reason to exclude anything controversial he has to say about Rawat.  Please don't accuse others of having a POV, when it's quite clear what yours is.  Btw, there has never been any concensus here about excluding bona fide news and magazine pieces from this article.  This continues to be a controversial article, but that's no reason to white-wash the truth about Rawat's life history that's documented in real media.  Sylviecyn 01:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The magazines listed in TPRF are published by independent companies and are publicly available and are therefore OK to include. And Andrea Cagan's book and everything in it can be used. However the last time this article was full of selective opinion, pro and con, it was "bloated' and "too long". Which is why we now rely on facts and the corroborated opinion of scholars.Momento 01:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Despite Sylvienc casted aspersions about published interviews such as the one that appear in the Ulster Talter, Bharat Ratna, Malaysia Tatler, and others, which are obviously unfounded, we are not using any material from these in the article, so I do not know why this is even raised. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The high net worth thing
I would also like to develop this, as it seems to be the key to much. I don't see Jossi's draft with "...known not to eschew" (wealth) as doing the job, as I have personally read Prem Rawat's advice to his students about becoming as wealthy as they (honestly) can. The irrelevance of personal wealth also seems a part of the philosophy of the Sants, though I have no sources for this. Any implication that he has acted inconsistantly or hypocritically in this would be quite false. Rumiton 10:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Please be reminded that any material added in this respect must be TOTALLY kosher, ie in accordance with wp:blp. ''An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.'' Rumiton 11:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Rumiton, I understand your concern, but note that reverting each other seldom produces any results. I attempted to offer an alternative manner in which that specifics material can be incorporated. Maybe it is not perfect, but I would suggest to endeavor ourselves in finding a suitable and appropriate manner in which to incorporate some of the sources that present that aspect in a neutral manner. I am referring to Hunt, Barret and others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You still have to explain why you think that Melton is a good source and at the same time that Mishler cannot be mentioned. This sounds contradictory because Melton mentions some of Mishler's criticisms. Andries 16:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I said that the source you used is not needed, and proposed an alternative version for consideration. After all, there are good, neutral sources that described this aspect, so I would expect that a suitable wording can be found. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with the current wording and the sources? Please remember that sources do not have to be neutral, but only reputable. Andries 17:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Inserting selective exceptional, irrelevant and biased opinion is unacceptable in this article (an any other Wiki article).Momento 23:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And including extremes of POV, in this case putting in angry denunciations by ex-accolytes as well as gushing testimonials by current devotees does not produce a balanced article, more a schizophrenic one. That was what we had before when we failed GA review. I think the current article shows a pretty good balance. Rumiton 02:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The current discussion about using newspapers brings up the subject of the Time magazine quote in the article - "An article in Time Magazine at that time reported that his mother and three older brothers kissed his feet when they were in his presence as a demonstration of worship". This typifies the problem with non-scholalry sources. Kissing or touching respected people's feet is a common in India but Time magazine uses it out of context to titilate the ignorant. I think it should be removed.Momento 03:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Older briothers and a mother kissing the feet of a younger brother and her son is highly unusual in India. Andries 05:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Not when the youngster is considered Balyogeshwar, the born lord of yogis. It's the done thing. Rumiton 08:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly Rumiton. Rawat was not a younger son/brother, he was their Guru.Momento 08:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a very important point. Kissing your guru's feet is not just common in India, it is almost obligatory. Time magazine's inference is that "kissing" Rawat's feet is the important, relevant or note worthy bit. It is not. What is unusual is that his elder brothers and mother considered Rawat their guru. They wouldn't be kissing his feet if he wasn't. Time magazine has trivialised an important issue and isn't worthy of inclusion in this article. It is not unreasonable to say it has racist undertones.Momento 10:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it could be included elsewhere, to underline the fact that his family identified him as a Satguru for a number of years. I don't have sources though. Maybe it is making it all too complicated. Rumiton 11:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not complicated, but your POV's are complicated about the reporting on foot-kissng or darshan. While it may be common for Indian people to kiss each other's feet, indeed, it's not part of the American culture, which it exactly what the Time magazine article discusses, because it's reporting on the Holy Family here, not India.  Rawat's students have been using the "it's common in India for foot kisssing between family members" argument for a long time, to explain the practice of darshan. Time hasn't trivialized anything.  It's reporting facts, and facts are good things, not bad things, especially, as premies state, that foot kissing is not a big deal. It's important to trust the readers to be  make their own judgments of the presented facts.  Sylviecyn 11:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Facts are one thing but context is another. Without understanding or at least being told about the Indian respect-paying customs the reader thinks he/she is seeing something bizarre. I watched a doco on Indian trains a while ago, and employees were shown touching and kissing the feet of the big-walla-in-charge. Fairly, they let him explain to the camera that this was a normal way of showing respect in India, they didn't just "present the viewer with the facts" of the foot kissing. Somehow we need to do the same. Rumiton 12:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The article in Wikipedia Darsana could be linked in the text to explain the touching or kissing of feet in India. However, it doesn't explain the practice by Rawat's students in western countries, whether in formal Darshan lines organized at certain events, or when around Maharaji personally, and I doubt there are any sources that do explain the practice in the west. The Darsana article might soften the blow of this practice to readers of the fact that it's been done here in the west.  It at least does provide some context.  Sylviecyn 14:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The correct article is Darśana. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jossi. Yes, your link is the correct one. Much appreciated.  Sylviecyn 19:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Darśana article is a good resource. But the problem is that Time is a populist magazine and this is an encyclopedia. It would be absurd to insert "He dines on vegetables—liberally supplemented by mounds of Baskin-Robbins ice cream" into this article and the "kissing his feet" sentence is no different. It is not a scholarly appraisal, it is written in a frivolous way, it offers no new relevant information (it is already establsihed that his family accepted him as their guru) and therefore it is undue weight.Momento 22:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it if fine material from a reputable source. In general I think that Momento and others engage in flawed reasoning to disqualify reputable sources that make even remotely critical remarks about Rawat. This does not lead to a NPOV article but to an uncritical one. Why not follow reputable sources and let the readers decide? Andries 07:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Andries, do you think we should include ""He dines on vegetables—liberally supplemented by mounds of Baskin-Robbins ice cream" in the article?

If not, why not?Momento 07:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * May be it should. Eating huge amounts of ice creams seems quite remarkable for a guru claiming to bring peace to the world. Andries 07:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well why don't you put it in?Momento 07:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That was *really* funny.... I could not help comment on it: what does ice cream have to do with world peace. LOL! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)\
 * Why would anyone claiming to a teacher of (inner) peace needs large amounts of luxury food? If he were a good teacher then, he would be filled with peace already and not need much external things to make him fulfilled. Andries 16:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What an extraordiinary claim Andries! Fortunately, your opinion on what constitutes "a good teacher" is irrelevant to Wiki. Although it is a clear demonstration of your bias and POV. As Melton says, Rawat " sees his teachings as independent of culture, religion, beliefs, or lifestyles" and that includes whether you eat ice cream or not..Momento 22:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Very revealing statement about opinions of what inner peace is and what being a "good teacher" means. PR never responded to people's expectations. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

We can add that ""He dines on vegetables—liberally supplemented by mounds of Baskin-Robbins ice cream", I have no problems with it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Dutch Christian cristicism
Just noticed Andries has inserted the opinion of three Dutch Christians into this article when it is the subject of mediation. And a newspaper journalist's retelling of people's opinions. The Christian Dutch opinions are coming out until this matter is mediated. And the newspapers claims are so exceptional they need multiple corroborating sources, apart from violating BLP.Momento 07:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not think that arbitration can be avoided because I do not understand how we can come any closer in mediation. Andries 08:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have offered an extremely short and toned down summary of the many, sometimes trenchant, criticisms voiced in many different reputable sources. I sincerely cannot understand how this article can be NPOV when even this is omitted. Andries 08:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Trenchant criticism"? The best they can do is say he too young, too fat, and not like Jesus.Momento 08:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What about charlatan (Lans and Kranenborg) and Guru Maha Rip off (Kent),heavy drinking (Mishler in the Washington Post), possible exploiter (Levine), living a life of idleness and pleasure (Lans and Kranenborg), inappropriate use of money (Melton on Mishler and Kranenborg), encouraging uncritical projection of followers on him, materialistic and pampered (Schnabel and Lans)? Andries 08:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (a) The Washintgton Post does not report on any "heavy drinking", they were quoting was Mishler that said that alongside another crazy allegations. (b) Kent pun on his name is not encyclopedic. (c) Levine does not call him "exploiter" (d) Melton does not report "inappropriate use of money", but again, describes Mihsler's rants. In seeing your "summary" of criticisms as you write it, I can see the problem with your approach: You may be misleadingly interpreting sources. As for the comments by der Lans about "charlatan", should I copy here the comments made in his obituary about the fact that der Lans scholarship was always tainted by his religion and his biases? (note I have re-factored a bit your comments about for BLP compliance) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No one denies Rawat has been criticised but look at the quality of his critics. Anybody saying God can be experienced without Jesus is a charlatan to Christians clerics, so that doesn't count unless Wiki has become a Christian encyclopedia. Guru maha Rip Off? Kent doesn't make the claim he simply note the claim of an insignificant radical weekly from Wisconsin. Heavy drinking? Is that Mishler again? "Possible exploiter. Wow, that really impressive. "A life of idleness and Pleasure", those active Christian clerics again. "Inapropriate use of money"? Didn't they also say that about Jesus. " encouraging uncritical projection of followers on him, materialistic and pampered". Sounds like the average Western consumer to me. Let's face it Andries, they're pathetic jibes from bigoted Christians, fired employees and student rags. These criticisms aren't even trenchant, they're hardly criticisms at all.Momento 09:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your reply illustrates a consistent pattern in your edits and comments that I think is not in accordance with Wikipedia policies i.e. disqualifying reputable sources because you do not agree with what they have stated. Andries 09:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right Andries, there is a consistent pattern to my edits and comments. Asking Christian clerics to comment on Rawat is like asking a vegetarian to review a steak restaurant. They may be very nice, reputable vegetarians but they will not have anything nice to say about the steak tartare.Momento 10:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you can start by explaining how a journalist's repeating of biased people's opinion is suitable material for an encyclopedia? And why three Dutch Christians' opinions of an Indian guru should be given any creedence in an encyclopedia.Momento 08:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The comment by Mishler is not only repeated by the Washington Post but also by Melton's Encyclopedia of cults. Andries 08:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Iincorrect. Melton doesn't corroborate Mishler Washington Post. Melton says - "Mishler complained that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill and that money was increasingly diverted to Maharaj Ji's personal use. Mishner's charges, made just after the deaths at Jonestown, Guyana, found little support and have not affected the progress of the Mission". Mishler can complain all he likes but Melton does not offer any opinion on the veracity of Mishler's claims. They were and remain unsubstantiated gossip and are a clear violation of BLP, amongst other Wiki policies..Momento 08:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Statements voiced by religious scholars in reputable sources are fine material. In religious matters, nearly everything is opinion, such as Rawat's claim to bring peace to the world is an opinion of his followers. Andries 08:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. Most statements voiced by religious scholars are facts,ie Rawat was born in 1957. When scholars offer an opinion, their opinion must be weighed against any obvious bias, of which the Christian clerics have plenty. Kranenborg & co's opinion are totally biased and therefore inadmissable. And nowhere in the article are Rawat's followers quoted about "bringing peace to world".Momento 08:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Distinctions
In reading the above discussion I came to the realization that some people here may have gotten confused aspects as it relates to facts and opinions


 * Facts: Born in 1947, married age 16, mother disowned him and left for India, etc. are facts that can be corroborated by multiple sources;


 * Opinions: "Prem Rawat's message is extremely simple. Extremely easy to learn and one wonders why we don't learn it when we're extremely small and keep it going that way." President of the Australian Institute of International Affairs, "Prem Rawat has received widespread recognition for providing inspiration and guidance to audiences around the world on the subject of peace" (Professor Mary Farqhuar, Director of the Griffith Asia Pacific Research Institute),  Kent pun "Maha rip off", der Lans "charlatan", etc. are opinions of these individuals.


 * Allegation: Neither a fact (unless proven, and then it is an allegation no more), nor an opinion (close to an opinion, unless proven false, in which case we have a defaming statement)

A BLP needs to be based on mainly on facts that can be corroborated. As for personal opinions of individuals, we need to excercise caution and avoid the use of such opinions in BLPs. And in regard to allegations, we may only describe any that have been described in reputable sources, and only if these allegations fall outside of the definition of "extraordinary claim".

In summary:, we can and should include some wording about the high-net worth thing, specifically avoiding any "opinions" on the matter, just describe the fact and provide the sources. As for the rest, it should not be included. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if I agree with your reasoning (I am not sure yet) then I think I have excercised very much caution. The many criticisms in many reputable sources is very short and very toned down. Andries 16:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In this version, that is a shortened version of the previous bloated article, criticism is interspersed in the article in many places, already. We are discussing opinions expressed by two Christian scholars that have not have the benefit of having consensus of other scholarly sources. In fact, most sources do not make these type of opinions, hence the caution needed when evaluating their inclusion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Concensus is not needed for inclusion. Andries 16:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In cases in which singular opinions depart from the norm, yes, we need some basic of consensus of sources. From WP:BLP:
 * Biographical material must therefore be written with strict adherence to our content policies.
 * An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.
 * Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. 
 * The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view
 * Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject.
 * ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that I have fulfilled all the points in the main text that I had proposed. Andries 17:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No really, as you have used sources that are unacceptable as per the above, and the summary is not neutral enough. My version may be nmot perfect but it is much closer to what is needed. See if you can review my version and better it. I am sure you can give it a try. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why did you omit Mishler? Andries 17:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The summary that I gave of many reputable sources, some of which made trenchant criticism, was neutral in style, so I do not understand why you say that my summary did not fulfill the state criteria. Your objections sound to me like a variant of the flawed reasoning, "I do not believe/agree with what reputable sources have stated, so let us not use them." Such reasoning does not lead to a NPOV article but to an article that reflects your POV. Andries 04:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

For example, you cannot add "Bush is an idiot" to the article on George W. Bush, based on this source ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My latest edit did not even come remotely close to something similar. Andries 04:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We omit Mishler for the same reason we omit the opinions of the dozens of followers quoted in Cagan's book. This is an encyclopedia not a debate.Momento 22:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The former president of the DLM and one of Rawat's former closest associate. Mishler was mentioned in Melton's encyclopedia. Andries 03:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding why we should not include Mishler's allegations: As recently commented in a dispute in another article: If a reliable source reported as fact that certain things happened, that is reliable, under our meaning of the word. If a reliable source reports, "John Smith, publisher of the Arkham Advertiser, today accused Dr. Henry Armitage of Miskatonic University of dabbling in the dark arts," that is merely proof that John Smith made a certain accusation. Any attempt to use such a source as proof that Armitge does in fact dabble in the dark arts is merely Fact laundering. Thathe essay Fact laundering was created during an ArbCom case, see also  Requests_for_arbitration/Vivaldi. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your objection strikes me a highly exaggerated. If a critic is mentioned is one encyclopedia then he can surely be mentioned in another. What more evidence do you need that inclusion of his name is encyclopedic? Andries 18:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Darshan
Sylvie, I think that's an excellent article (Darśana), well done for finding it. My only concern, which I hope you can share, is that Prem Rawat's life story is so unusual in any context that the process of raising controversial points and then going to lengths to elucidate them, could go on forever. A large book wouldn't do it justice, let alone a brief BLP. But if everyone is happy with the idea, I would like to see a darshan/devotion section inserted, and would be happy to help work on it. Rumiton 09:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

A petty grammar point.
In the first section of the article, last paragraph... 'closed the ashrams and abandoned the traditional Indian religious trappings in which the techniques originated'.

Would not 'trappings from which the techniques originated' be more appropriate? I have to say, that as a new reader here, the article appears extremely balanced and concise, an easy read that is in no way biased either for or against its subject matter. At what point does the article reach the 'published, too late for changes' status? It appears close. I think congratulations to editors from both pro and con camps is due. VivK 02:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no such a thing as "published, too late for change" in Wikipedia. An article reaches a stable status, when ... it is stable. There is a process of peer review, which we have done in the past, as well as Good article status, but that status can change at a later stage: it can lose its GA status, or it can be improved further as a Featured article status. First, we need to achieve stability, then we can submit for GA review again. There is no rush... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello VivK, thanks for your constructive look. I see you have noticed the truly dreadful word "trappings." Unfortunately it was a word favoured by the two most prominent researchers of Prem Rawat's life and work, Downer and Melton. The awkward phraseology is theirs, and we are pretty well stuck with it in describing the big changes that PR made in the early 80s to the culture that surrounded Knowledge, as no one else seems to have looked at it. You will see the word occurs in the main text and the references no less than 9 times. Your change is of course for the better and the more grammatical, but whatever you do with it, it is a lousy word. We are gilding a rotten and inherently defective lily. The techniques did not "originate" in any blasted "trappings" and if I were allowed to say so, I would. There, I feel better now. Thanks for your help. Rumiton 12:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

To you too Rumi, for your support while I clumsily fumble my way around the Wiki world. I agree, the trappings sentence is awful but realised it has to stay that way for source credibility, did change to 'from' though. I noticed on the honours page that there was a 'published, too late for change' status which I felt the PR article had almost reached - but Jossi rightly corrected me there. On a second look I see that message only applies to the translation pages. Regarding TV audiences, I can remember seeing PR on TV in England last year and have contacted someone there to confirm or deny if there is in fact a regular program being aired. With a massive UK television audience it would a relevant addition to the list I think.VivK 03:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * VivK, the article already says The Prem Rawat Foundation, established in 2001, promotes his message in eighty-eight countries via print, video and television... The UK is just one of those countries. Also we need to be careful of unverifiable claims such as "...massive UK television audience." If you can find a UK poll that gives a figure for the audience there, that would be very useful. Sorry to be a wet blanket, the rules, and so forth. Ta. Rumiton 14:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine R. The massive TV audience in UK I was referring to was of TV in general, not PR in particular. The fact that WOP is broadcast regularly in London for instance would be of some note. Though I have yet to hear confirmation from my contact that this is in fact the case. :) VivK 01:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Bibliographical references
I just noticed: Rigopoulos, Antonio The life and teachings of Sai Baba of Shirdi State University of New York press, Albany, (1993) ISBN 0-7914-1268-7

Does that have anything at all to do with Prem Rawat? If not...the chop. Rumiton 13:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Dunno... Andries added this ref, if I recall correctly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Out it goes. Rumiton 15:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

wrong summary
Andries 15:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "His teachings and his youthful behaviour attracted the critical attention of Christian scholars."
 * That is inaccurate. Melton is not a christian scholar but a religious scholar who happens to be Christian. Moreover, Melton reported criticicm. He did not voice criticism himself
 * Within a few years, Rawat's desire to manifest his own vision brought him into conflict with his mother and family, and his marriage to an American follower in 1974 caused a permanent rift
 * Main citatiion is follower Geaves who presents a minority view. The citation to Melton is completely wrong as I have written at least five times, but nothing is changed. The encyclopedia was not written by Melton. Melton wrote only the forword. The reasons were voiced by several scholars which a common thread i.e. the marriage, not his desired to manifest his own vision. I am not saying that Geaves' view has no place in this article, but not this minority view in the summary.


 * "His teachings and his youthful behaviour attracted the critical attention of Christian scholars." is accurate. We refer here to de Lans and Kranenbourg. Melton did not criticise PR.
 * Geaves is chair of religious studies of Chester University, and as long as we are stating that he was one of the earlier students, there is no reason to dismiss the source. The encyclopedia was edited by  Christopher Partridge, Melton wrote the foreword.
 * Other other sources describe the family rift is similar terms, and it could be expanded if needed.
 * ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ad 1. Then the comment is unnessarily vague, and the references for the comments are not listed, Kranenborg's and Van der Lans' views (who by the way are scholars in the first places) are inaccurately summarized (or very freely interpreted)
 * ad 2. I think you have not accurately read my objection. To summarize my comment, mentioning Geaves' view in the lead is undue weight. In addition, incorrectly citing him is completely unacceptable because the reader should be able to find out quickly that he is a follower and hence possibly biased. In other circustances correct citing the author name would be not so important.
 * ad 3. Like where?
 * Andries 17:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)18:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)~


 * I will let those editors that wrote the lead to respond to your objection. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You keep modifying your comment. I will reply to your objections later, when you have finished tweaking your comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, sorry for that. Andries 18:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The sentence that starts "Within a few years..." is almost a direct quote from Downton, Sacred Journeys, and J. Gordon Melton, Christopher Partridge (Eds.), New Religions: A Guide. New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities. We have been referring to the latter as "Melton" for shorthand. I am trying to understand the problem you are having with this. I cannot find anything contentious that is sourced to Geaves, and in any case his status as an early devotee is made clear. Rumiton 08:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The entry in Partrige's book was written by Geaves. Also, Downton seems to be freely interpreted. Andries 08:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Downton wrote Nearly sixteen, he was ready to assume a more active part in deciding what direction the movement should take... etc. I can see no free interpretation there. I don't have Partridge's book yet, but have ordered it. In any case, he is the scholar who approved the contents. I also don't see the statement of "attracting critical attention" as too vague. We have reported that he faced opposition from established Christian churches, to quote them in any more detail would be to give their opinions undue weight. Rumiton 09:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The opinion that this was a cause for the rift is a minority opinion and undue weight. I do not see any reference for opposition from established churches. If you mean Kranenborg and Van der Lans then this a misinterpretation of sources. Andries 09:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you think that criticism and opposition in the lead is undue weight then please explain how it is possible that I found 9 different sources for only two sentences of text? Andries 10:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We have ...desire to manifest his own vision brought him into conflict with his mother and family, and his marriage to an American follower... I can't see how this is a minority view. All the unbiased scholars say something similar. Rumiton 09:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a minority view because I could not find it in a single other source. Only the biased follower Geaves says so. I am not saying that Geaves' view has no place in this article, but not incorrectly cited in the lead. Andries 09:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that the entry on Elan Vital on that encyclopedia is only one of the entries written by Geaves. He also writes the entries on the Naqshbandi Haqqani Sufi Order and other Sufi orders, Meher Baba, the Halveti-Herrahi order of the Dervishes and more. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 10:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Andries, I did not know that these statements were from Geaves, but it makes little difference. I feel you continue to misunderstand the significance of the reputable source. By including these statements in his book, Partridge is saying "My research leads me to present this as the truth." He has to interview members and sympathisers to get information. But when he selects statements for publication he is standing behind them. He cannot disown them by saying "It was Geaves who said that, not me." That is why his book is quotable as a reference. Rumiton 13:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I never said that the book cannot be quoted, but not this controversial statement in the lead and not incorrectly cited. Andries 13:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't find the present Lead controversial at all. It's very mild, it's neutral, some might even call it bland. If you want to expand the references, maybe you could explain there how Partridge went about his compilation. But definitely not in the main body of the article. Unnecessary detail. Rumiton 14:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I hereby correction myself. I meant to say that Geaves' view on the marriage rift in the lead is, not so much controversial, but undue weight. Andries 14:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Andries, do you have any idea how much of everyone's time you consume with these games? Do you care? I strongly suggest you go and engage in mediation as soon as Momento is available and think about all this deeply. Rumiton 14:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you think I am gaming? was sincerely voicing what I see as problems with this article. Andries 14:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And please do not accuse me of wasting your time when you insisted on have a flawed re-write here though I had repeatedly voiced my many detailed complaints about the re-write before it was inserted. Nothing was or is done with my complaints. Andries 14:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquote
How can the Wikiquote box be made to lead directly to the Prem Rawat page? The URL is http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Maharaji_%28Prem_Rawat%29 Rumiton 14:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing that Jossi. I gaze in wonder at your expertise. Rumiton 14:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation
It appears that the mediation process has been abandoned after exhausting two experienced mediators. If, as seems likely, this failure is a result of Andries' persistent refusal to engage, and his professed lack of confidence in the process, I am taking it as evidence that Andries' goodwill towards this article, other editors, and Wikipedia is non-existant. Rumiton 14:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Exhausted? You make it sound like a marathon was run.  :-)  Rumiton, please show me the Wikipedia policy that states you or any other editor has the right to make declarations about someone's good will and intentions, thereby declaring them persona non grata on an article.  Thanks. Sylviecyn 10:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Untrue, I am waiting for Momento. Andries 10:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Andries, but that is not the impression I get from Sean's comment as for the reasons of closing the mediation. Maybe we need to ask Sean to be more explicit about these reasons? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop using intimidation and innuendo against Andries, Jossi. Sean didn't mention any names in his statement, and he could easily be referring to the premies in his statement (which I thought was the case).  Sylviecyn 13:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would please ask that this topic be dropped. Failed formal mediation cases should not be used as evidence or to impugn another editor. Thank you for understanding. Vassyana 12:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would let the facts speak for themselves, Vassyana. Editor's good faith or intentions are quite transparent to all, by simply following an editor's contributions and comments. After all, this is a wiki. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please be aware that formal mediation is privileged. The "hard" limits are being used in ArbCom and any kind of disciplinary procedure as evidence. However, this is a principle, not a purely mechanistic rule, like most things on Wikipedia. I know you are personally familiar with other instances where information and communications involved are confidential and should not be used on the wider wiki. Formal mediation is also one of the few exceptions to the rule in regards to the "open" nature of the wiki. Thanks for understanding. Vassyana 17:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand that the mediators may not want to discuss things that are privileged, such as their reasons for dismissing the case. That is understandable. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Jossi, why are you so intensely involved on the mediation when the parties listed are Momento and Andries? You dominate the conversation on that page. Please let the two parties hash it out.  Maybe if you stayed out of it, more could be resolved.  But, if you insist on inserting yourself into the mediation process between Momento and Andries,  I'm going to do doing the same.  I wasn't aware anyone could do that, when only two parties were listed on the page as parties.  Sylviecyn 13:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree Silviecyn, Momento and Andries have proved themselves to be more than capable of speaking clearly for themselves (as long as A can stick to the topic!) Much as I admire Jossi's propensity for dealing with many subjects at the same time, in my view this area should remain the combatant's alone.VivK 01:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sylvie, I may have this wrong as I do find it rather confusing, but I think the stuff on the mediation page is all just lifted from this page. I don't think anyone has written anything there yet. Hey impugn! Another great word we don't hear enough of! Like trappings. If you guys don't stop impugning right away, I will be forced to start rattling my trappings! Yes. Rumiton 15:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't you like the word trappings, Rumiton? It's not archaic, and is a commonly used word (here in the states, anyway) with no association in the lexicon of the things placed on horses.  That use would be archaic. :-) Sylviecyn 12:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't I like the word "trappings?" (I was joking about the horse thing.) It's a bit like asking why I do enjoy Shakespeare and Dylan Thomas. Obviously, it's because they don't use words like trappings. That's not a very good answer. The main problem I have is the suggestion from one of the academics that the techniques "originated" in the Hindu religion or its trappings. I don't think it matters a lot, but from what I have read (a collection of strong scriptural hints more than anything else) I think the techniques go back way further than any of the modern religions, and I think it quite likely that people practising them inadvertantly started most of those dreadful organisations and attached dogmas that oppress people today. So feeling that way, it particularly irks me that this word appears in this article and refs 9 (count them) times. Rumiton 13:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess I have also (unfairly) singled out this expression to express my general frustration with those academics who I feel missed the point so comprehensively in the 1970s and with whom we are now stuck. Cheers. Rumiton 13:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Any user can post comments in the talk page of mediation cases. Having said that, if the MedCom accepts the new request, the mediation will be between the named parties only. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I had not understood that the previous mediation was cancelled and have filed a new request Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat_3.Andries 19:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also I want to state that you refer to an old comment that I made just after Momento made a revert that I then believed blatantly violation NPOV guidelines. Andries 19:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Andries, the third request for mediation has been denied. What now? Sylviecyn 12:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You can start a request for mediation. The involved parties may depend on what you see as the dispute that you want to have resolved. Andries 23:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What I will do myself is make a copy of this article with comments in which I will state the many things that are wrong with this version. It is a lot of work, because many things are wrong. Andries 00:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You request sources for "His teachings and his youthful behaviour attracted the critical attention of Christian scholars", when are actually sources provided, and in the same edit you add an unsourced comment about Geaves being a "follower". Wjat would you call that kind of editing behavior? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Melton is a religious scholar, not a christian scholar. He did not voice criticism but report criticism. Kent is not a christian nor a scholar but a scientist (sociologist) It may be subtle, but I think the statement is not covered by the citation. Andries 19:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Jossi. I am amazed that Andries would insert a sentence starting with "One religious scholar ..."; as it is obviously undue weight. If Geaves is discounted because he is a follower, then all other followers should be. And Melton wasn't just a scholar who happened to be a Christian, in 1968 Melton was ordained as an elder in the United Methodist church and remains under bishop's appointment to this day. He was the pastor of the United Methodist church in Wyanet, Illinois (1974-75), and then at Evanston, Illinois (1975-80). He was also a member of the Spiritual Frontiers Fellowship. I suggest we remove "His teachings and his youthful behaviour attracted the critical attention of Christian scholars" until this matter is resolved. Momento 04:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I was concerned that Andries put the ""One religious scholar ..." sentence in to provoke an editor (me) into removing it and then try for a fourth mediation. But there is no doubt that an encyclopedia cannot have the comments or opinions of one person given unique prominence, so I am taking it out.Momento 04:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

And you can't describe Prof Geaves as "a follower" of Rawat without also describing Melton, Kranenborg etc as "a follower" of Jesus. So I have removed that as well.Momento 05:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Beaten to it by another editor.Momento 05:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure you can, Momento. Melton isn't a "follower of Jesus."  He's a christian, which is a mainstream religion.  geaves is a follower of Prem Rawat, which at the most, is a New Religious Movement.  You can't compare the two.  Sylviecyn 13:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless you are a mind reader, Momento, there's no way you or anyone else can somehow intuit Andries's motives for adding something to this article. I wish you'd stop making those accusations as it doesn't help here.


 * What particular religion Melton, Kranenborg, et al practice is immaterial to this article because they are not adherents or long-term followers of the subject of this article, Prem Rawat. The NRM scholars research and write about a variety of NRMs, but they are not members of the NRMs about which they report.  This is an important distinction from Ron Geaves, and therefore makes them non-biased for purposes of their reporting on Rawat.  Ron Geaves, on the other hand, is a decades-long follower of Prem Rawat who, by all anecdotal reports by people who know him in England, believes in Rawat's divinity.  That is what discredits his reporting of this subject, Prem Rawat, makes his writings on the subject so controversial, and why he could be viewed as an apologist of Rawat's life history.  To discuss the religions of the other scholars as if their religions carry any weight in their assessments of the Rawat NRM, is simply a red-herring.  To compare Melton to Geaves by saying that "Melton is a follower of Jesus" is besides the point.  By pidgeon-holing Melton and other scholars in this way, you're also comparing Prem Rawat to Jesus, which is another logical fallacy.  Geaves's singular adherence to Rawat as his student is the point.    Sylviecyn 12:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Same as Geaves can be seen by some as an "apologist", Melton, Bromley, Crysssides, Hadden and many other NRM scholars are also called "apologists" by their detractors. That in itself is no basis for dismissing their scholarship. In any case, we have already discussed the fact that in Cagan's book, Geaves is described as one of PR's early students. No one should add a claim that "Geaves is a follower" without a source that support that statement. Geaves is only controversial in the eyes of his detractors, and the community of NRM scholars have shown only respect and appreciation for his work on the subject. So, I would appreciate that given than Ron Geaves has an article in Wikipedia, and he is a living person, that editors refrain making comments such as the ones above as per our policy of WP:BLP. I invite Sylviecyn to refactor these comments as soon as possible. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What is so bad about writing that Geaves is a follower when this is mentioned in his article? How can that possibly be defamatory? I did not dismiss his scholarship, but I think the reader should be aware of possibly strong bias. Critical assessment of written sources is necessary in Wikipedia and elsewhere. And if a writer does not like that then he should stop writing. Andries 19:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (ed conf) You may have misunderstood what I said. There is nothing wrong in saying that Geaves was one of the earlier students (as per the sources we have, Cagan's book). I was referring to some of Sylviecyn's comments above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Jossi, you and the other adherents are deliberately being obtuse about my argument -- that's something I cannot help. The discussion is about Geaves's bias based on his being a premie, not whether or not other scholars are apologists.  Apples and oranges.  Also, I wrote nothing defamatory about Geaves, therefore, nothing needs to berefactored, and I warn you against altering my post.  Also, it's disingenuous of you to try to imply that neither you nor Cagan, or any of the other adherent/editors here know that Geave's is a decades-long follower.  And even if you didn't, how is calling him a premie defaming him, anyway(!) when you're using Wikipedia to promote Prem Rawat's work?  There's no logic in your statement that I can find.  Btw, Andries is a living person, but I didn't notice you wagging your finger at Rumiton when he defamed Andries's character above, nor did you tell him to refactor his post.  So, dole out your criticism as an admin. fairly or don't dole it out at all please.  Sylviecyn 20:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I will not take your bait, Sylviecyn. (a) I am not editing Wikipedia to promote the work of anyone; (b) As per WP:BLP, and WP:TALK, you cannot use these pages to disparage living people (read the policy); (c) I would advise you to stop making veiled comments that are only designed to escalate the conversation into the personal realm; (d) Rumiton's comments where quite close to what the mediator said in his closing statement. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh ye of bad faith, Jossi. I wasn't trying to bait you or anyone. But, I'm sorry that you misunderstood me.  Just trying to get a reasonably easy point across about Geaves that has been ignored for months now, particularly by Momento.  It gets frustrating.  I'm sure you understand.  Sylviecyn 13:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not misunderstood you at all. Please do not play games as at this point it is tedious, not funny, and insulting. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop personally attacking me, Jossi, by saying I'm playing games with you. I don't play games.  I'm quite serious, actually.  Please review WP:NPA  Sylviecyn 15:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand your argument completely SylvieCyn. Geaves is a follower of Rawat and is therefore likely to be biased; Melton, Kronenborg etc are followers of Jesus but because they are not followers of Rawat they can't be biased about Rawat. Which is the same as saying Professor A believes in climate change and therefore his opinion shouldn't be allowed in the Climate Change article; but Professors B & C don't believe in climate change, therefore their opinions should be included.Momento 23:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, Momento, sorry you're still not getting my point. Since that was at least the sixth time I've explained this rather simple concept to you here on on others' talk pages, I starting to wonder if you're capable of grokking this issue at all.   Sylviecyn 13:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Or SylvCyn (now that you have everyone's attention as desired) it's like a libelous detractor accusing Prem Rawat of being a 'dangerous cult leader' because he said..."A person in great turmoil can still experience peace, because turmoil happens in the head and peace resides in the heart." To all but detractors this makes perfect sense, the heart being separate from mental activity/illness in the head. Similarly, Ron Geaves is qualified to discuss matters of theology because of his well earned reputation and respected knowledge in the field, not because he is or isn't a follower of Jesus, Krishna or the Rolling Stones.VivK 06:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello VivK! Wrong on the Geaves issue. But, if you want to discuss what I post on different website, I invite you to register at the Prem Rawat Discussion Forum (attack site link removed by Rumiton.) I'd be happy to discuss this with you there. But, please keep what I post there off of here.  Thanks!  Sylviecyn 13:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Edited  Sylviecyn 12:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sylvycyn, it's not about right or wrong on the Geaves issue, we are not in a school playground and Ron Geaves certainly does not require your endorsement. Neither are we here to gratify your apparently insatiable need for attention. Please confine your ceaseless provocation (like that of the editors here) to your other forum (provably an attack site) where it belongs. Thank you.202.162.99.235 10:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from personally attacking me. This isn't the first time you've done so, VivK. Sylviecyn 17:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon?VivK 07:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop characterizing me in any way. I certainly am not seeking anyone's attention, and it's inappropriate for you to say that.  Please read WP:NPA again.  Sylviecyn 15:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

And I suggest you stop assuming who is saying what to you on this talk page.VivK 09:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Rumiton, I've restored the name of the website to which I was referring in my comment to VivK. I take issue with you characterizing it as an "attack site Please use caution when altering my posts here.  Thanks...  Sylviecyn 12:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Geaves was/is definitely a premie, from my recollection, but I think he might object to the word "follower." I do. It has a miserable, plodding feel to it which in no way describes my connection to Prem Rawat. "Adherent" is poor too, it sounds like some kind of glue. "Student" implies study, which does not happen. "Enthusiast" might be OK. Or "appreciator." I rather like that one. Rumiton 14:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We can only report what sources say, Rumiton. At this point we have only Cagan's book in which Geaves is mentioned as one of the earliest students. We ought to use that term, unless someone has another source that says differently. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know that Jossi. I can live with it. Rumiton 15:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The line about critical attention from Christian scholars seems unremarkable to me. There were critical articles and they nearly all seemed to be written by scholars of the Christian persuasion. Given Christian beliefs about other religions (they all lead the unwary to eternal damnation!) that seems only to be expected to me. But I shall remove it pending further discussion. Rumiton 13:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Spearheads
I see John Brauns has changed "spearheads" to "contributes to". I have no problem with this. I never liked spearheads, it has an annoyingly vague and promotional feeling. Contributes is better, and I feel more accurate. But something else has been removed from the early section about conflict with his family. Now it goes straight from nothing to the big final rift. Who did that? Come on now, stand up the one who did that! Rumiton 13:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with John's edit. Sylviecyn 15:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Spaces between dots and refs
Thanks for noticing that, Jossi. It has made an amazing improvement to the look of the article. I will go off and do it to other articles I am working on. Cheers. Rumiton 14:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, what happened? I see you have taken the spaces out again. I also did it on another article and got severely jumped on. Did you misread the guidelines? Rumiton 15:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I certainly did. The idea is to leave no spaces between punctuation and the ref tag, to avoid having orphan refs due to text flow.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh well, no harm done. I will go back to the other article and abjectly apologise, and thereby earn points for my openness and humility :-) I still think it looks way better with the space, and I can't see it as any problem at all that a ref might go onto the next line. They can't get separated, as far as I can see. Maybe there is something I am not getting. Rumiton 16:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think what should be re-inserted is that he was criticized for his sumptuous lifestyle and lack of substance of his teachings. Plenty of sources for that. Andries 19:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is already there in the Teachings section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean in the summary. Andries 19:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Lack of substance of his teachings? That is entirely speculative and relative to the individual observer. Millions of people who have heard him would argue against it. It can never be seen to be proved as 'fact'.VivK 12:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * VivK, please read WP:NPOV. In Wikipedia articles we report on verifiable facts as well as opinions. Facts are in most cases, quite easy: He was born in such  date, arrived in London in such date, got married in such date, etc, providing we have verifiable published material that attest to these dates. Opinions can be verified as well, if these opinions are published in reputable publications and  written by notable people, such as scholars  who wrote on the subject, with some caveats: see WP:NPOV. If an opinion or viewpoint is a minority viewpoint, but the viewpoint is significant, it can be described in the article. If it is just a minority viewpoint (in particular if it raises a redflag) we do not describe that viewpoint at all. And when the article is about a living person we apply these policies and guidelines very stringently. Hope this helps.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes,thanks Jossi, interesting.VivK 09:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, opinions of scholars expressed for a particular audience may be unacceptable due to bias. The usual example is that you would not insert as fact the Pope's opinion of the Dalai Lama in an article about the latter, though you might acknowledge that the opinion was a hostile one. Rumiton 15:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The comparison is wrong. Relevant statements from experts in the field such as religious scholars Kranenborg, Melton, Hummel written down in reputable ssources are perfectly acceptable. Andries 16:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but within the caveats of WP:NPOV and WP:REDFLAG. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the comparison is precise. Pope Benedict is both a religious scholar and an officer of a Christian church. So were most of the other 1970s European critics of Eastern Religions. Rumiton 14:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)