Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 31

Note
On the face of the lack of action in curtailing personal attacks, malicious edits, and other behaviors, please note that my recusal from editing this article was voluntary, and that I am seriously considering resuming editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, please would you provide evidence/citations of: 147.114.226.172 (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * lack of action in curtailing personal attacks, giving examples to support your case
 * malicious edits, indicating what you think might have been malicious about them
 * other behaviors, presumably implying that any behaviors are somehow suspect

I've tried to find something positive to be said about Mr Rawat in external sources not controlled by him. Are there any. This search gives over 1000 references. I couldn't find one that was positive that wasn't published by Mr Rawat or his followers, i.e. there is no one independent out there who doesn't believe there's something a bit iffy about this guy. Why doesn't the wikipedia article reflect all that general feeling out there about Mr Rawat? At the moment wikipedia is making a laughing stock of itself as per the informer article 147.114.226.172 (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was doing a Google Book Search on "Prem Rawat" and on "Maharadji" yesterday. You'd be surpised how many authors acknowledge Prem Rawat positively in the preface or intro of their book. So, no, I don't think this attitude of "generally, nothing positive on Prem Rawat is available on the web unless controlled by him" should be supported. It is speculative. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Francis, but I think we can use the word wrong, not just speculative. Your search of prefaces and intros is illustrative. A simple Google search for "Prem Rawat" gives 116 000 results. I note that about 90-95% appear positive, and the negatives clearly emanate from the same fairly small group of sites and people. No doubt none of this is directly usable by WP, but it shows that his message has been well received by many, and I hope we will find a way to acknowledge that. (I have temporarily shelved my plan to produce a trimmed back version. Maybe we can get this thing to work.) Rumiton (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Finally some evidence of the divine nature of The Knowledge, allowing you to discern rapidly from 116,000 links the proportion of which are favorable. Bravo Rumiton, you are a wonder! Keep up your great work here in wikipedia. You will be rewarded. 84.9.50.87 (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The above statement by 147.114.226.172 stands out for its disingenuousness. Including the term "Evening Standard" in the search string ensures the tabloid article by the paper of the same name appears in the results. Of course the results will be negative, that's what tabloids are all about. Rumiton (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Frankly, the disingenuousness of the post simply led me to ignore it. But good point on the 'evening standard" search term.  Anon user, if there really is so much negative material on Rawat, why not simply find the really solid ones -- top notch journalists, academics and books -- and bring them to our attention?  Msalt (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Evening Standard internet search showed the most recent press coverage of Prem Rawat. The Evening Standard is cited here in wikipedia in relation to criticism of another living person, Ken Livingstone. Presumably to cite such a link should also be ignored. After all, no one is claiming that Ken Livingstone is a living saint. Should we not consider the nature of the stories published in the press, rather than ignore them on the basis of implied ad hominem attacks against the professional journalists whose jobs depend on not writing defamatory material? Why is an Evening Standard citation acceptable for inclusion in wikipedia in relation to Ken Livingstons but not in relation to Prem Rawat? I think we should be told.84.9.50.87 (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding: "You'd be surpised how many authors acknowledge Prem Rawat   positively in the preface or intro of their book." You misspelled "Maharaj Ji" in your post, so I hope you didn't in your search. Prior to 1973, when referring to "Guru Maharaj Ji," most American authors meant Satuguru 108 Neem Karoli Baba Maharaj. Until the middle of 1973, Readers Guide to Periodical Literature referred to Prem as "Balyogeshwar, boy guru." The "Inner Tennis," books are dedicated to Prem. "Be Here Now" is dedicated to Neem Karoli Baba, but it just says "Guru Maharaj Ji." For that reason, I also think it is important to keep "Balyogeshwar" prominent at the top of the article. Wowest (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Google Books search returns a manageable number of links. Let's see how many books there are that are not published by Rawat's outlets and not written by devotees who give him a dedication. That will narrow the field further. Then we will start to see just how much disinterested material there is on the goodness of Mr Rawat's message. Would such a survey be useful? 84.9.50.87 (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Unencyclopaedic Headings
One of the unfortunate consequences of the inheritance of an overly hagiographic approach to this article is that unencyclopaedic headings have constrained the internal logic of the article. While the sources may be open to criticism I still think that User:Nik Wright2/ Rawat balanced sources offers a better overall structure.

Certainly the current Headings: Leaving India, Coming of Age, and Westernization are wholly imbalanced. The headings suggest entirely personal events in the first two cases while the third relates entirely to a claimed change in the supposed 'teaching', but throughout the material concerns Rawat’s career as a Guru and the events that affected the structure of organisations – rather in the way that a family business might be affected in other circumstances. If this article is to be balanced, NPOV and comprehensive, the various threads need to be separated out and justified on the basis of evidence. Personally I would like to start re-writing whole sections – but perhaps some of the newer editors could first take another look at User:Nik Wright2/ Rawat balanced sources and indicate what they feel is not right with that approach.

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

God, yes I see and agree totally. It's funny how familiarity with the article's general look over the years has eroded my better judgement. Looking at that heading 'Coming of Age' I see it is dripping with respect. It implies some sort of stateliness or something. I guess I just got used to it but this is essentially the sort of tone I've objected to all along. Even in my premie days I would have been embarrassed at such public pomposity. It's simply looks so out of place in an encyclopaedia. Imagine if this was an article about any other living person -The Pope? Mother Teresa? Kennedy? The Queen? Nelson Mandela? John Travolta? Do you think any of these people would be comfortable about having stages of their lives, separated out and described in such terms? I mean..Nelson Mandela....'Coming of Age'? Doesn't work for me? Can any editors here justify why Rawat deserves language which possibly only befits historic royalty? Essentially the facts about Rawat are framed in language which itself says: 'This man's whole life - from childhood on - is extremely significant'. To be honest the fact that Rawat is so plainly comfortable at being projected in such reverential terms in public strikes me as extraordinarily arrogance on his part. Who does he really think he is? Or like the song we used to sing in the 70's and the book by Charles Cameron was titled..'Who is Guru Maharaji?' This is obviously the question he thinks the world should be asking.PatW (talk) 10:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The headings make sense to me. The Pope's, Mandela's, Travolta's articles describe their chronology in terms of what they were doing at the time. Rawat's life can be divided into his "Chilhood" in India, "Leaving India" for the west. "Coming of Age" is a crucial turning point in Rawat's life, becoming an emancipated minor enabled him to marry and assume legal responsibility. Like wise "Westernization". Let's see what you can come up with.Momento (talk) 11:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't be too hard. Off the top of my head - 'Childhood' (1957-1974)'  and  'Adulthood '1975 -Present Day'  would be far more enclyclopaedic. Would prefer to see is headings that no way smack of 'momentousness' (no pun intended)PatW (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Imho, there's much to be said for the article structure proposed by Nik in User:Nik Wright2/ Rawat balanced sources. I think it's better than the current section title sequence of the Prem Rawat article.
 * Over-all Nik's prose would also be a major improvement (style-wise) over the often confusing prose currently in the article. Just picking a small example I think illustrative:"Despite being only 16 Prem Rawat was able to marry without his mother’s permission having achieved emancipated minor status in California and in May 1974 he married 25-year-old Marolyn Johnson, one of his American followers. (User:Nik Wright2/ Rawat balanced sources)"compared to "In April 1974, at the age of sixteen, Prem Rawat became an emancipated minor, and in May, married 25-year-old Marolyn Johnson, one of his American students. (Prem Rawat)"Nik's version indicates that becoming an "emancipated minor" was tied to the place where he lived, and imho reads more fluently than (for example): "In April 1974, [...] and in May [...]"
 * As remarks, regarding Nik's version (all of this imho):
 * Lead section less effective than current lead section of the Prem Rawat article (although also for that lead section I'm far from finished suggesting improvements);
 * We don't do section titles in capitals only, when there's no distinct reason (like for example widely understood acronym);
 * Needs wikification;
 * No EL section (but that's a separate debate).
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think your judgement of these sentences might be influenced by your own Muttersprache (mother tongue). In English, Nik's version has too many concepts for one sentence and so is clumsy and garbled. And telling the reader where the decree was made (California) seems unnecessary to me. As I have said before, this is not a book we are writing. We need to get rid of words that are not earning their keep in the article. BTW, Francis, your reporting of Momento on the Administrators' Noticeboard without notifying him was, I believe, a serious breach of good manners and not conducive to editorial harmony. Good work will be required to repair that damage. Rumiton (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Re. "I think your judgement of these sentences might be influenced by your own Muttersprache (mother tongue)" – might be (I said: imho), but my mother tongue does not contain the word "Muttersprache", FYI. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, I am getting the feeling that the nitpickings about minutiae such as a complain about "unencyclopedic headings", or should a name be in the lead and not in a section are just nonsense, or should a sentence be re-constructed is totally unhelpful. The discourse here is deteriorating badly.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Er... You started the discussion on whether "a name [should] be in the lead and not in a section" - I didn't even contribute to that part of the discussion above in (I said it should be in the lead per Lead section, I didn't say a word on whether or not it should be in a section, which was your part of the discussion from the moment you started it). So, what you're implying is that you're deliberately trying to deteriorate the discussion here, or did I misread what you just said?
 * Admittedly WP:MoS issues are of secondary importance, but progress there is not to be scorned either. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

New Section headings
With text now imported: Adolescence, Schism,Interegnum and Charismatic Leadership. This gives the first two sections as related to Rawat as Child and Adolescent, with subsequent sections relevant to his claim to notabality - i.e his career as guru etc. The new text significantly increases the range of references for a period that is crititical to the explanation of Rawat's history as guru and his role in his 'movement'. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What is this? Weeks of discussions for simple stuff, and then one person comes along and changes the article entirely without a word? Janice Rowe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If actually read the discussions you see that there has been much discussion. You reversion was unwarranted. Try reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat#Unencyclopaedic_Headings

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC) I did read that, and I didn't find "much discussion". Janice Rowe (talk)


 * Do you seriously believe that you can "import" your sandbox article without discussion? Have you noticed how much time we have taken to discuss things as a name, or a house? I am sure you have, so making such unilateral massive changes is either a silly maneuver, or outright disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Very nice, Nik. Shows how much you care for building consensus. I find your last edit and edit warring to be most disruptive of one of the most basic tenets of this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not only your massive edit was not discussed, it includes extraordinary levels of original research and editorializing of sources. Guess what will be the first edit after the protection is lifted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Other topic

 * Re. "BTW, Francis, your reporting of Momento on the Administrators' Noticeboard without notifying him was, I believe, a serious breach of good manners and not conducive to editorial harmony.":
 * Please don't mix topics on this talk page;
 * Please, NPA (WP:NPA), comment on content, not on contributor.
 * If you must know, notifying Momento would have been a breach of good manners, as he had said to me: "I consider your frequent posting on my talk page to be harassment. Stop it." . I was clear about not being able to post on Momento's talk page for that reason when I listed the WP:AN discussion, so anyone uninvolved could have picked that up. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Slightly disruptive editing of Momento (talk · contribs). For clear reasons, I wanted to avoid as long as possible to discuss Momento's behaviour on multiple pages, certainly not on talk pages that should be devoted to article writing, while not the topic of these pages: WP:AN, on the other hand, is an appropriate place to ask for guidance on such things.
 * I tried to merge the topic of Momento's behaviour with other related points at WP:AN, unsuccessfully, but anyway notified about such discussions at WP:AN via this talk page, the moment an admin had suggested it would be best to notify. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Many here have requested that someone who knows the system better do something to officially reflect our objections to Momento's disruptiveness. I unreservedly support his action. And..maybe you premies might want to do what would really good mannered for once (since your contrived versions of this article have come under public criticism) and  just sit back, relax, watch and learn what a comparatively unbiased editor makes of all this. I'm fascinated to see.. aren't you?PatW (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There are no "comparatively unbiased" editors here, if this were a trial, no neutral jurors could be found. Your shameless exercise in guilt by association and other red herring type behaviours have seen to that, and now we have to live with it. We have no choice now but to keep contesting. Same old same-old. Rumiton (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ruminton...Yes, of course no one's neutral but that's ok. And it's not what I said. What I meant was that there are distinctly 'comparatively un-biased editors' here now. A very helpful third category of person if you will- who are very useful in mediating this debate. In fact you might want to loosely look upon them as a jury in this contest. Ie. People who are neither 'followers' or 'ex-followers' of Prem Rawat. It's not rocket science. Also, I maintain that you are mistakenly reading 'guilt by association' into my having argued above (apparently successfully) that there were actual comparisons with the People's Temple and Rawat's  power structures, in that both cases practised some top-level secrecy and beliefs in the divine authority of the leader.  I denied your accusations already. I welcome you questioning my conscience because it's clear and I feel no shame thanks. You are absolutely correct that this article is contested. You simply seem to be in a sulk that you,  Jossi and Momento are losing the almost total editorial control you're used to and which was widely perceived as inappropriate.PatW (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I claim "comparatively unbiased", for reasons I explained elsewhere. I recommend to avoid the use of the word premie, when referring to other editors, while not helpful. I'm not calling anyone here a premature birth either, am I? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No Francis, that does not fly on the face of evidence. Compare your treatment of some editors here, and your treatment of others. Rather than come here and help mediate a difficult situation, you have chosen to take sides in the dispute and that is too bad. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure, anyone who doesn't agree with you on the spot on each and every point is in an opposing camp. This divisive attitude won't fly. Rumiton's approach has much more nuance, e.g. "Francis, I have seen some encouraging signs of neutrality from you." --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I also claim "comparatively unbiased", and see Will Beback, Cirt and Vassyana as others just off the top of my head. I'm sure I'm forgetting some. Without arguing your point about Francis, Jossi, do you agree?  Rumiton's claim of no unbiased editors disturbs me, as it seems to imply that bias is the norm and acceptable, if not preferred. As I said earlier, I felt suspicion on arriving here because I did NOT have a conflict of interest that people could categorize me by, and that is in my opinion backwards and wrong. Msalt (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We all have our biases, Msalt. The moment we start actively editing an article, our biases tend to surface. Having said that, I think that it there is no problem with this issue, we are all human, after all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Will Beback and I go long ways, and I respect him greatly as an editor. So I feel about Vassyana. As for Cirt, I would prefer not to comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the several reasons why this article became unbalanced was because it had been left alone by the wider Wikipedia community to factions with strongly opposing POVs. Andries (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Er..Francis...I should maybe tell you that Rawat's followers are proud to be called 'Premies'. It is not a derogatory term. I couldn't use it as such if I wanted which I don't. PatW (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Still, not useful imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * PatW, for a person that has abused this page, you have some chutzpah to come here and speak of disruption of others.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi, what do you think is more disruptive to Wikipeda, coarse language on the talk page or blatant double standards in assessing sources? I think the latter. Andries (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * TThe answer is obvious. There are no excuses for personal attacks, Andries. A dispute about assessing a source, can be mediated, and resolved. A personal attack, cannot. Wikipedia is not a place to rant, voice, or express, our feelings, opinions, and emotions about follow editors, or about subjects covered in the encyclopedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Jossi, I have tried many, many dispute resolutions on this article and I received often no response. Mediation with Momento was tried but aborted partially because you successfully made attacks on my good faith. I am willing to file a request for comments every week because there are so many unresolved disputes and this may be in full accordance with Wikipedia policies. You dismissed independent comments in dispute resolution as misguided and supported Momento's divergence from this comments. Do you think dispute resolution will help when some editors continue to use blatant double standards? Only for a short time and a little bit, I think. Andries (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Andries, the failing of that mediation was your own. You know that very well, so does the Mediation Committee members that looked at the case. You cannot enter into mediation if you preempt it with a statement that you do not believe in its outcome and you want to go to Arbitration. Your words, not mine. First steps of dispute resolution, such as RFCs, informal mediation and mediation, are useful when there is good will and intention to find common ground and compromise related to content disputes. ArbCom, on the other hand, will not hear a content dispute, taking only on issues related to user conduct. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, unhappily for you I've got the nerve to call a spade a spade and I've had quite enough of the arrogance, barbed comments and plain disdain towards ex-followers (and others) that has been dished out here over the years. I'd like to point out that your apparent COI, rule book-waving and Momento's long-term walking over people's edits is actually at the root of the mistrust and rude outbursts that happen here. I fully admit to occasionally chastising people in a cross manner. You should thank me for losing it sometimes...it gives you authoritarian types something substantial to jump up and down about. Let's make no mistake the baiting cuts both ways. And by the way, I am laughing that you think Francis is taking sides. That to me just shows how deeply cultified your thinking has become. No offense.PatW (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I chose not to respond, Pat. Not until you stop making such comments, and commit to not doing it again.. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

1974 home purchase edit
There is missing information from that edit, as per the source (my highlight):

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of information in that article that isn't included here. I've added that it was announced to be the WC DLM HQ. The article also says the DLM's monthly income was $300,000, split between donations and investment income, lists the number of U.S. followers as 50,000, and gives a defence of his spiritual message despite his lifestyle.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What an un-encyclopedic addition! What relevance does it have? BLP policy is clear "Editors should avoid repeating gossip. 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". The short answer is that it has no relevance, it is undue weight, it is poorly sourced contentious material. I'm removing it according to BLP policy.Momento (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Poorly sourced? The Los Angeles Times isn't a reliable source? This is extremely disruptive. ·:· Will Beback  ·:·  —Preceding comment was added at 03:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Extremely poorly sourced compared to an article by a sociologist or religious scholar. And certainly contentious. And irrelevant. This is why there is a BLP policy, to stop editors writing Biographies of Living Persons using the property and social pages of a newspaper.Momento (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A reference from one of the leading newspapers in the United States is "extremely poorly sourced"? That's rdiciculous and your deletion of properly sourced material is disruptive. I call on Jossi, an involved admin, to render his opinion of whether the L.A. Times is an inappropriate source for Wikipedia, and if it is then why a non-scholarly biography is considered reliable. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Momento, religious scholars and sociologist are more interested in describing beliefs and practices than describing property transfers. A newspaper is a better source for this kind of information than scholarly sources. Andries (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think that the argument should be on the basis of "poorly sourced", Will. The question is, "is the purchase of a house encyclopedic, or not?" What do you think? Are there other BLPs in which a purchase of a house is featured? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Arnold Schwartzenegger wikipedia article cites the Los Angeles Times in relation to his alleged sexual misconduct. That is presumably encyclopedic because people are interested in reading about it in the encyclopedia, just as they might be interested in a less notorious person's mysterious property portfolio. The reason why this is encyclopedic in this context is that once people become celebrities then such facts become interesting - the more so if accompanied by efforts of some to hide the information. 84.9.50.87 (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The David Beckham wikipedia article tells us that his house cost $15M. Scholars wanting to compare the degree of conspicuous consumption practised by celebrities would be deprived if they aren't allowed to see how much the house that Prem Rawat lives in is worth. 84.9.50.87 (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, since you mention it, there is also Bill Gates' house. Jayen 466 00:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Before we get to that question, first let's deal with WP:V and WP:RS. Momento says that the Los Angeles Times is an "extremely poor source". and that material referencing it is "poorly sourced". Is it a reliable source?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends on context, Will. A source can be reliable in one context and unreliable on another. The usability of sources are to be assessed together with other criteria such as NPOV, undue weight, and BLP policies. Read the lead of NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You have read the article in question so you know the context. Is it a reliable source for the assertions that reference it? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Either a source meets WP:RS and WP:V, or it doesn't. Clearly the Los Angeles Times does, and removal of material backed up to this blatantly satisfactory source is obvious disruption, I agree with  on that. Cirt (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What Prem Rawat or anybody else pays for a house is irrelevant to the article. The article is about Prem Rawat, not about what house he bought and how much he paid for it. The article is about Rawat's significance, not his living situation. Armeisen (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Per the Los Angeles Times: "West Coast headquarters for the DLM" were run out of Prem Rawat's home. This is relevant to this article, as it is notable that the Divine Light Mission was run out of his home.  Thus the house that he bought and how much he paid for it can be seen as funding for DLM at the same time as his own use, and is relevant, discussed in secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V, and should be mentioned in the article.  Cirt (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Plus the fact that major news sources such as the Associated Press, Reuters, etc., often report on the purchases of expensive homes by public figures and celebrities. It certainly is relevant to their lifestyle, and, if able to be sourced to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, is relevant to articles on notable public figures.  Cirt (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not relevant to this article. What evidence is there that DLM was run out of his home? Did DLM exist when he bought this home? I think not. Where did the author get the information? It's just rubbish that someone wanted to use to sell newspapers. For all your criticism of the "brainwashed" followers of Rawat, you are certainly naive when it comes to what appear in newspapers. I'm a follower of Prem Rawat, and a critic of the "truthfulness" of the media. Some of you people seem to believe that whatever anyone writes in a newspaper must be correct. And I suppose you all fall down and genuflect when George W. Bush talks about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Or do you have some other agenda in this debate? Armeisen (talk) 06:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to propose a framework for discussing this question. On the one hand, this is not in any way a violation of BLP.  On the other hand, that does not mean it belongs in the article, per Jossi's point.  The important comparison, I think, is other speaker/authors of note, whether religious, spiritual, or secular.  Can we agree on that?


 * Let me elaborate. This is not a BLP issue, which means Momento that you are not justified in unilateral provocative deletions exempt from 3RR.  There is nothing derogatory; purchase of a major property is a sign of success, though of course it suggests affluence if not wealth  (which Rawat has never denied or apologized for, as near as I can tell.)  It is clearly notable; the property itself is notable, whoever purchases it.  If launching a satellite distribution network is notable, then certainly purchasing a major property as DLM headquarters is too, esp. in a narrative depicting that year as a time of difficulty (the split from his family, loss of some followers, etc.)  And the source is impeccable -- the Los Angeles Times does not falsify real estate deals, which are clearly documented in public records.  Momento calls this contentious -- does anyone dispute that Rawat purchased this property?
 * Now, none of that means it belongs in the article necessarily, but it means we should discuss it under normal rules, with proper discussion, consensus, etc. not BLP-based "aggressive deletion."


 * Jossi's point is the key one, I think. As I've said before, the comparison should be other speaker authors such as Robert Bly, Tom Peters, and Deepak Chopra.  (If anyone has better comparisons, please share.)  I don't think we would list this deal for any of them. Then again, we don't list all the ups and downs of their careers the way we do with Rawat either.
 * I suggest that the best course would be trim the article down, paring much of the ups and downs, including this edit. But if we continue to keep all of that type of narration, I think this point belongs among it.  I would shorten it, and make it a bit more NPOV, by saying something like "In 1974, the DLM purchased a secluded hilltop property in Malibu, CA for $400,000 as its West Coast headquarters.  Prem Rawat and his wife have lived there since."  It might make sense to combine this with the statement about him living in America since he became a naturalized citizen around the same time.  There is a touch of criticism for wealthy living in it as it stands, which I think should be excised. Msalt (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The material in the L.A. Times article is sourced directly from the DLM. In the text that Jossi has transcribed it clearly says that the purchase was "announced". Many assertions, including the time spent in Pacific Palisades, the income of the DLM, the defense of his lifestyle, and the size of the group, are attributed to DLM officials. So this is not muckraking, it's reporting on an announcement by a notable public figure. Aside from the details of this report, I think it's important for us to establish whether the L.A. Times and N.Y. Times are reliable sources for this article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In Wikipedia context, the L.A. Times is a prototypical example of a reliable source. Compare Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 29, third bullet of SlimVirgin's contribution. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A guru buying a house for himself in Malibu for USD 400,000 is quite unusual and relevant for his notability. Remember that Rawat was criticized for his lifestyleAndries (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Secluded, hilltop property?" "Palatial, walled estate?" Check your browser. This is Wikipedia not the National Enquirer.Momento (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In case anyone was wondering how many times an editor can remove this contentious material, I'd like to draw your attention to the BLP policy that states - "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy". It is clear that in reducing two articles in the LA Times to two sentences Will Beback has made "a conjectural interpretation of a source".Momento (talk) 10:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Momento, sometimes I get the impression that you read the policies and guidelines with the sole purpose of getting rid of statements that you do not like. Your twisting and misinterpretations of guidelines and policies seems to be endless. Andries (talk) 10:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you happy with this tripe?Momento (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The chief article cited is titled "Maharaj Ji Buys $400,000 Home Base in Malibu Area". The source is the L.A. Times which has received the 2nd highest number of Pulitzer Prizes of any newspaper. What is being conjectured or interpreted? That's an unreasonable and unsubstantiated claim. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You have reduced a 379 word article to less than 20 words? Are you sure your summary accurately reflects the source? Are you sure it didn't say anything about 6 million devotees or security issues? Or even "Maharaj Ji has made a considerable impact among American youth"? Because if it does, you have deliberately distorted the source by cherry picking 5% of the article and ignoring the rest. And that is a "conjectural interpretation of a source" and we should all know what that means. That's why scholarly articles and papers from experts in their field are the preferred sources for a BLPs and not newspapers articles. And Francis, you have re-inserted it and "Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy". Perhaps you might self revert?Momento (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Jossi, can you please give us your opinion about whether the L.A. Times and N.Y. Times are reliable sources for this article? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I already did, above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't find your answer. (The best I can see is "Depends on context...") You've read the specific article in question so you know the context. Momento says that it's "extremely poorly sourced". Is the L.A. Times a reliable source? Or if you prefer to answer more narrowly, is the cited article a reliable source for the assertions drawn from it?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, the argument of "poorly sourced" does not apply here. What applies here is editorial judgment in relation to the encyclopedic value of such material, as well as what material is chosen to be cited from the material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So you don't agree or disagree with Momento's assertion that the material must be removed because it's "extremely poorly sourced"? You have no opinion abot whether the L.A. Times is a reliable source? OK, since I can't get a straight answer here I'll take this to the reliable sources noticeboard for an opinion. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How many times do I need to make my argument so that you accept it? I am not arguing that the LA Time is an unreliable source. I am not arguing that the material is "poorly sourced". I am arguing that editorial judgment about suitability of material, in the context of all other existing policies' needs top be exercised, in particular in BLPs. That is all. Clear now? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking you about your argument. I'm asking you a simple question. Is the L.A. Times a reliable source for this article? Momento has said "no" and has deleted all material sourced from there. Aside from the details being reported and their suitability, do you agree with him that it's an unacceptable source? I'd think you could answer that question sinceyou've ofered your opinions about numerous sources both on this page and on the WP:RS/N.  But if you're too conflicted to answer I understand and I won't repeat it. I've posted the question to get an opinion from uninvolved edtors.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Will, that is not cool. I have answered your question quite explicitly. I am saying that an LA Times article can be a reliable source. It is not an absolute, as there is no such a thing. Maybe is about time you refresh your understanding of Reliable sources, and WP:V: (my highlight) Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're saying the LAT "can" be a reliable source, which doesn't address the question directly. I'm asking "is" the LAT a reliable source? It's a yes or no question. I won't press you on it any further. But if folks here start arguing that the LAT and NYT are unreliablee sources because they aren't scholarly while at the same time defending a non-scholarly biography then they'll give the appearance of a double standard. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What I am arguing, Will, is that it is not a yes or no question. There is no such a thing: The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. That's all. 23:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jossi (talk • contribs)
 * I said I won't press you in it, so I'll just point out that the specific context in this case is known so we should be able to make a determination. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Downton's Perspective
Currently the article relies on 9 references from Downton, from a total of just 84. As a contemporary reporter of the 1970 period Downton is undoubtedly valuable however his work on the Divine Light Mission was coloured by a very specific perspective, about which he was quite explicit –

^ Downton, Sacred Journeys. " From the beginning, Guru Maharaj Ji appealed to premies to give up their beliefs and concepts so that they might experience the Knowledge, or life force, more fully. This, as I have said, is one of the chief goals of gurus, to transform their followers' perceptions of the world through deconditioning. Yet Guru Maharaj Ji's emphasis on giving up beliefs and concepts did not prevent premies from adopting a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity and the coming of a new age."

The problem which arises is that nowhere do the references place Rawat in a wider context of ‘gurus’ as defined by Downton (or anyone else), nor is there any explantion of what ‘deconditioning’ Rawat employed nor how that fit within Rawat’s teachings. These omissions would not matter except that these issues underlay Downton’s study and to not make them explicit within the article while relying so heavily on Downton as a source, risks an unacknowledged promotion of a Downtonesque POV. Some reduction in the number of Downton references is probably desirable and/or replacement/complementing with Foss & Larkin who carried out a 30 month study in the same decade. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (a) The article does not present a "dontwonese" perspective; check what the source is used for. (b) All sources are coloured by the bias of the author (Kent, Foss & Larking, Meltion, and the rest of them), so what? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * a) Jossi that is untrue, Downton's opinions are stated as fact even when there are scholars who disagree with him See here
 * b} agree
 * Andries (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the edit for now, since it splits the two sentences sourced to Downton in a way that makes it hard for the reader to follow the narrative. Also, looking at, I don't think van der Lans/Derks claim to be in disagreement with Downton. It seems to me that in their timeline they focus on the family split around 1975, following which Hinduistic elements were dropped in favour of a focus on Rawat's personal role as a teacher or saviour. That point is already made 2 paragraphs higher up ("... took control of the Western DLM, and as its sole source of spiritual authority, encouraged students to leave the ashrams and to discard Indian customs and terminology"). The point about a move towards more messianic beliefs is made by Downton as well, but he dates it – perhaps more precisely – to late 1976, also backed up by other sources. Since Derks and van der Lans explicitly refer to Downton's narrative as an extensive description of the ideological changes that occurred, I reckoned that his is the more detailed chronicle of events. Hope that's okay. Cheers, Jayen 466 01:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I admit that Lans and Derks may not have written in clear contradiction to what Downton wrote in this respect, but the strong wording by Derks and Van der Lans (accepting Guru Maharaji as a personal saviour) is quite different from Downton. Andries (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (a) The article does not present a "dontwonese" perspective

At present 11% of all references in this article are to one work by Downton, given the very specific (untested and unsupported) proposition that Downton was working to to i.e that the chief goals of gurus, to transform their followers' perceptions of the world through deconditioning. the potential for imbalance is obvious. (b)All sources are coloured by the bias of the author. It is a falacy to present all biases as equal. In this context Downton's work was undertaken with a predisposition to present the activity of 'deconditioning' in an uncritical and even approving manner, in fact Downton's proposition borders on an exceptional claim as per WP:V.  but the strong wording by Derks and Van der Lans (accepting Guru Maharaji as a personal saviour) is quite different from Downton. I agree with Jayen that Derks & Lans rely on Downton's chronology but their analysis is very different and makes a useful balance, though it needs careful inclusion. My suggested text at User:Nik Wright2/ Rawat balanced sources is

With his mother and eldest brother having no legal claim within the US, and with opposition from within the American organization neutralized, Prem Rawat was free to exercise the role of lone charismatic leader to the Western branch of the Divine Light Mission. The first evidence of assertion of his control came in late 1976 when a policy of ashram closures that had been begun earlier that year under Mishler’s influence was reversed, while at the same time moves towards democratisation within the DLM following were curtailed[44] Devotionalism became an even greater aspect of Prem Rawat’s ‘teaching’ and the millenarian ideology of the early 1970s fell from use.[45] As the single charismatic leader, unencumbered by competing family members or challenged by assertive officials Prem Rawat reprised, albeit in a north American context, the distinctive role of a Sant Mat Guru.[46][47][48]

Membership of Prem Rawat’s following had begun to change from 1975, according to Derks and Lans pre 1975 followers had been attracted by DLM’s Hinduistic ideology which “offered them an opportunity to legitimate their already existing rejection of the Western utilitarian world view”, while after 1975 new members included those who “had been very religious in their preadolescent years.” Derks and Lans suggest that this preadolescent religiosity, primarily Christian had been lost in adolescence but refound in the ‘satsang’ of Divine Light Mission. The new followers came to see Prem Rawat and their relationship with him as a source of continuous religious experience making Rawat much more important for them than he had been for many of the pre 1975 members.[49]

Footnotes 44^ Price,M. Ibid. At the same time the stress on the community premie, which had led to what was now viewed as excessive democratization, which was strongly repudiated by Maharaj Ji at Frankfurt, has now been controlled by the simple device of blocking public communication channels upwards to the head office. For more than twelve months now, the national publication which carried letters from premies, often extremely critical of other premies and the head office, (but never of Maharaj Ji), has not been printed. Instead premies receive an exclusive diet of full transcripts of Maharaj Ji's satsang at various festivals across the world. Maharaj Ji made it known that he disliked his satsang to be edited and only extracts of it published. At present then, premies have neither a public platform for discussing the mission's policies nor a vehicle for receiving an interpreted policy via the mission's officials. Such a situation, though increasing Maharaj Ji's control over the movement, does so at the cost of expansion and middle-management confidence. 45^ Björkqvist, K Ibid. 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. 46^ DuPertuis, L. (1986): How people recognize charisma: the case of darshan in Radhasoami and Divine Light Mission. Sociological Analysis, 47, Page 111-124. University of Guam Charisma in Sant Mat / Radhasoami / DLM tradition can best be understood in terms of darshan for which, according to Bharati, "absolutely no parallel" can be found "in any religious act in the West . . . " (1970:161, cited in Eck, 1981:5). Darshan means "sight" - of the deity or the guru who embodies him/her, usually for the purpose of imbibing his/her divine powers or grace (Babb, 1981; Eck:1981). It implies sight on a rich multiplicity of symbolic and spiritual levels which demonstrate a complex mix of doctrinal and mythic, perceptual and visionary, interactional and experiential dimensions in the relationship between a charismatic spiritual leader and his or her followers. 47 ^ Downton, James V., Sacred Journeys: The Conversion of Young Americans to Divine Light Mission, (1979) Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-04198-5 p199 "Although there were still residues of belief in his divinity, in 1976, the vast majority [of premies] viewed the guru primarily as their spiritual teacher, guide, and inspiration but his appearance at an event on December 20th, 1976 in Atlantic City, New Jersey, wearing a Krishna costume for the first time since 1975, signaled a resurgence of devotion and Indian influence. Rawat was elevated to a much greater place in the practice of Knowledge, many people returned to ashram life and there was a shift back from secular tendencies towards ritual and messianic beliefs and practices. 48^ Downton, James V., Ibid. "Signs of rededication both to Guru Maharaj Ji and the inner guru became quite apparent. Most of the premies who left the ashrams in the summer of 1976 began to return in 1977, when more than 600 signed up to enter the ashrams in just a few month's time. 49 ^ Derks, Frans, and Jan M. van der Lans. Ibid. One of the characteristics of these new members is that they had been very religious in their preadolescent years. In those years their religiosity had been characterized by the experiential dimension; they had felt a warm personal relation with Jesus. But this religiosity had disappeared, partially because they had been taught by their religion teachers at secondary school to think in a rational way about religious matters. They lost their capacity for religious experiences, and as a result, the Christian religion lost its plausibility for them. In Divine Light Mission they recognized, during "Satsang,” the religious experiences they had had during their childhood. They came to see Guru Maharaj Ji and their relationship with him as a source of continuous religious experience. This made Guru Maharaj Ji much more important for them than he had been for the pre 1975 members. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * the very specific (untested and unsupported) proposition that Downton was working to to i.e that the chief goals of gurus, to transform their followers' perceptions of the world through deconditioning. Nik, I believe that is neither an untested nor unsupported proposition. The notion that man needs to be freed from his conditioning is indeed a practically universal theme among gurus of all colours. Just to give some examples of similar concepts in the teachings of various gurus, expressed in their own terms:


 * 1) L. Ron Hubbard (Scientology) tried to free people of "engrams" and the "reactive mind" to allow them to reclaim their psychological freedom and innate capabilities, to become "clear".
 * 2) J. Krishnamurti: Knowledge Is Conditioning. Q: What do we mean by conditioning? JK: Can the brain ever be free from all the programmes it has received? Is it possible through watching the very activity of thought? This watchfulness makes the brain extraordinarily acute, sharp, clear? This clarity is freedom.
 * 3) Gurdjieff insisted that unreformed man is a machine: ALL RELIGIONS SPEAK ABOUT DEATH DURING THIS LIFE ON EARTH. Death must come before rebirth. But what must die? False confidence in one’s own knowledge, self-love and egoism. Our egoism must be broken. We must realize that we are very complicated machines, and so this process of breaking is bound to be a long and difficult task. Before real growth becomes possible, our personality must die.
 * 4) Idries Shah: "Once they realize that no prizes are being given for correct answers, they begin to see that their previous conditioning determines the way they are seeing the material in the stories. So, the second use of the stories is to provide a protected situation in which people can realize the extent of the conditionings in their ordinary lives. The third use comes later, rather like when you get the oil to the surface of a well after you burn of the gases. After we have burnt off the conditioning, we start getting completely new interpretations and reactions to stories."
 * 5) Adi Da Samraj: "You are habituated to exercising yourself and being conditioned and identified with conditioning in the lower aspects of your appearance here. When Called to exercise yourself intelligently relative to your conditioning and to “consider” it, you tend to become rather silent, or you start babbling and rehearsing your insides, resorting to your conditioned subjectivity, as if that is all there is, as if intelligence has no functional capability, as if you have no greater experience, no greater disposition, no Revelation."
 * 6) Nirmala Srivastava: "The truth which can be actualized after Self-Realisation is that you are not this body, this mind, this conditioning from the past, this ego, these emotions, but that you are the Pure Spirit."
 * Indeed it could be argued that similar ideas underlie many of the world religions' teachings as well. So I do not see Downton as biased here, simply scholarly. I don't see him as uncritically supportive, either, as his very next sentence quoted above indicates (Yet Guru Maharaj Ji's emphasis on giving up beliefs and concepts did not prevent premies from adopting a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity and the coming of a new age.).
 * Van der Lans and Derks, on the other hand, write from an explicitly Christian perspective. This is not a problem in terms of their being used as a source here, but their allegiance to a Christian POV should be borne in mind. -- Jayen 466 16:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Where did Derks and Lans write from an explicitly Christian persoective? I think that you are mistaken. Andries (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Jayen you've done Downton's work for him - but we can not assume that those references you give would have been accetable to Downton and we are left with Downton's assertion but no context against which to test it, in contrast say to Galanter. Yes I think I know what Downton meant but his was a speculative work and it needs balancing in an article like this. Lans and Derks religious allegiance is irrelevant because it does not form the basis for the hypothesis of their paper, which is concerned with group stratification. The criticism you note in Downton is of course criticism of the followers, and by extension excuses (in Downton's terms) the failure of Rawat as a Guru. The criticism is self serving (to Downton) because it leaves his proposition intact - I would describe this as very much not scholarly. But the need is for balancing references which is what I've suggested. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As a Professor of Sociology working in this field, I am sure that James V. Downton would have known a lot more about these matters than me. I think that he simply did not consider it so relevant to his present context as to go further into it. As for Derks' and van der Lans' assertion that "In Divine Light Mission they recognized, during "Satsang,” the religious experiences they had had during their childhood." (= i.e. that they revived an aspect of their childhood connection to Jesus), this appears to me like it could be somewhat coloured by their Christian POV. I am not sure you would find the same statement in non-Christian sources. But okay, that was their view. Jayen 466 19:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that Derks and Lans was a Christian source? They described converts to the DLM in a tradionally Christian society. Andries (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayen what Downton may or may not have considered relevant is not at issue - if the source doesn't provide the material it ain't possible to imply it. Downton's book fails on this basis, irrespective of his exalted status as a Professor. It's not a matter that Downton is wrong in his proposition regarding what 'gurus do', it's that there is no context in the book in which to place Rawat in respect of Downton's proposition. As Andries points out Derks and Lans proposition regarding premies connection to Jesus in childhood, is related to the express statement that converts to Rawat had a Christian background with Derks and Lans proposition follows from observation, and the observation is contained in one context. By contrast Downton observes something in Rawatism and then claims that as proof of a proposition, the context for which extends beyond Rawatism. I hope you grasp the logical differences in the two cases.

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, I can't follow your argument. I fail to see the significance of the sentence This, as I have said, is one of the chief goals of gurus, to transform their followers' perceptions of the world through deconditioning. What he is saying there is not anything extraordinary or controversial. Why should the presence of this sentence affect his suitability as a source? And why should we want to claim to know better? Isn't it simply our job to reflect the sources?
 * Re Derks and van der Lans' Christian viewpoint, this is mentioned and sourced in . (Also see Jan van der Lans; Frans Derks is the President of KSGV.) If an author writing about another religion has a specific allegiance to a Christian viewpoint, it may (or may not, depending on editors' consensus) be appropriate to identify the source as a Christian one where Christian beliefs enter into the argument. Same if an Islamic scholar writes about Christian beliefs and contrasts or compares them with his own faith; if such an author were quoted in an article about aspects of Christianity, then I would expect the source to be identified as an Islamic one. Cheers, Jayen 466 19:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I know that one of the books that Jan van der Lans (not Derks) wrote was commissioned by the KSGV (Catholic org.), but the one that I quoted here in this thread was not, and written both by Derks and Van der Lans. Andries (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I had gotten my wires crossed there at first; but since Derks is the president of the KSGV and Jan van der Lans studied in a Christian monastery and then became an academic at a Catholic university (according to our article on him), I submit it does not make much difference. -- Jayen 466 00:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * From van der Lans' obituary: He had part-time appointments in the psychology department and the theological faculty of the Catholic University of Nijmegen, and although his work was certainly not without theological preferences and bias, he presented himself at both institutions as an empirically oriented psychologist. Jayen 466 01:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But clearly Jan van der Lans and Derks tried to write neutrally and their articles were published in on topic scholarly magazines (Update) or University press (Mercer university press). Andries (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Having read one of their articles since then, I agree that it is neutral and scholarly. What set my alarm bells off was the apparent idea that Rawat had somehow usurped the feelings that Premies had for Jesus in their childhood. This seemed potentially self-serving, coming from a Christian theologian, who might see an emotional attachment to Jesus as somehow more proper than an attachment to another figure. But on the evidence of what I have read so far, I have no objection to their being used as just another scholarly source like all the others. Jayen 466 23:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Biographies of Living Persons
Much of the edit warring on this article has revolved around disputes over the requirements of the WP:BLP. Perhaps it will help us move forward if we come to basic agreement on some of the issues involved. To quote the policy:

From lede: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space."

From Reliable Sources section: "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for controversial, derogatory, or otherwise unverifiable material about a living person other than the publisher or author of the material (see below)."

Two issues immediately come to mind: 1) Is all criticism "derogatory"? If not, how do we distinguish "fair" criticism from derogation? 2) Is the immediate deletion provision limited to "contentious" material?

I don't have any opinion on the first, except a gut feeling that criticism properly sourced is not by definition derogatory. I would love to hear the opinion of others though.

On the second question though, I think I can shed some light. In the Balyogeshwar section above, Momento accused Francis of changing the structure of that key sentence of the BLP policy quoted above to change its meaning, and argued "The sentence reads 'unsourced' OR 'poorly sourced contentious material'. Not 'contentious material, unsourced or poorly sourced'. "

I believe this is not correct. After the initial paragraph, the BLP policy spells the policy out in greater detail. And the section specifically entitled "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" reads as follows:


 * "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy."

That seems to settle the issue by making it clear that the immediate deletion policy applies specifically to contentious material. Agreed? Msalt (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not all criticism is derogatory, Msalt. NPOV ask us to present significant viewpoints that are published by reputable sources, and BLP asks us to be most cautious in our evaluation of sources and external links. The issue that has been argued, is that linking to a self-published source that contains derogatory material, conjectural interpretation of sources, and hat does not meet WP:V is a violation of Wikipedia content policies. There is also the issue of undue weight that needs to be taken into account in this context, as it relates to sources and viewpoints presented. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Jossi. Very helpful.  I guess I'm still unclear what is derogatory vs. what is critical but not derogatory.  Say we see a web site that lists a bunch of reputable sources documenting harsh criticisms.  How do we distinguish self-published websites (or are all websites self-published by nature?  Is it connection to a journal or periodical?)  How can we tell if those criticisms are derogatory or verifiable but unpleasant truth?


 * Also, you mention conjectural interpretation of sources. That seems common, even to verifiable sources.  For example, that allegedly "speculative sentence" by Miller.  It seems  only right to ignore such conjecture and not quote it, but must we throw out the entire source for such a common act? Msalt (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Msalt is talking about two different but complimentary paragraphs here. The first is a paragraph about the importance of references/sources, the second is about contentious material.
 * The first paragraph begins with "Be very firm about the use of high quality references". High quality references/sources is all about ensuring verifiability and eliminating original research because the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The "reference/source" paragraph gives two examples of material that should be deleted immediately on references/sources grounds. The first material to be deleted is any "unsourced" material i.e. it has no sources at all and this is fundamental policy and the second material to be deleted is "poorly sourced contentious material" i.e. it has inferior sources and might be OK if the material itself wasn't contentious. Either of those situations should be corrected in any case but since this is a BLP they should "removed immediately and without discussion". Jimbo Wales provides the following comment in the Verifiability policy - "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons". There is no suggestion that the material needs to be contentious to be "aggressively removed", only that it is not sourced.
 * The second paragraph concerns "contentious material" and describes three types of "contentious material" that should be removed. And they are - "unsourced contentious material", contentious material that "relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability" and contentious material that is "is a conjectural interpretation of a source paragraph". You'll note that this paragraph instructs editors to remove "contentious material" if it "is a conjectural interpretation of a source paragraph". In other words, you can cite all the sources you like but if the editor makes "a conjectural interpretation of a source paragraph" is should be removed.
 * There are two separate but complimentary issues here.Momento (talk) 10:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Momento, for a very clear and detailed analysis. That's quite helpful.  I wonder if anyone else has an opinion, agreeing or not?  I have to say that I read the two sections and just don't see the distinction you do.  Not that unsourced items are OK, but it's a matter of application.  No one expects a reference every 5 words, yet sometimes the discussion here has been reduced to that level.  In many cases, references already used on the article in fact document the "unsourced" points -- in other words, they are actually sourced but just not cited.  It doesn't make sense to me that in a case like that, Jimbo Wales would want the uncontentious item aggressively removed without discussion. Msalt (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A respected expert who writes that "Pavarotti was flat" is a criticism. An unknown who writes that "Pavarotti is fat" is being derogatory. The BBC Music website is published by a respected organization and may be a source for material on Pavarotti, a website created by an anonymous person is not.Momento (talk) 10:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And on the subject of "conjectural interpretation of sources", quoting Miller's opinion is fair. Misquoting a source is not. Remember this disgraceful example - Hunt's quote is - "Leaving his more ascetic life behind him, he does not personally eschews material possessions". Some editor's "conjectural interpretation" was "Prem Rawat turned away from asceticism, no longer denouncing material possessions". That is a conjectural interpretation on a massive scale.Momento (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Great to see some serious discussion on this issue. Regarding interpretation of words like "high" in "high quality sources" it seems to me that Wikipedia values reputation, and does so on the logical presumption that a source (which can include either a publisher, a writer, or the material they produce) who has worked hard to establish a reputation in a certain field can be expected to deliver neutral, high quality research. This is what makes their opinion valuable. "Self-published sources" are those without a carefully built-up reputation for neutrality, and in the worst cases may even have tried to achieve notability by the strength and consistency of their biases. Members of opposing religious groups and apostates, among others, fall into this category. Not all websites are self-published. Highly reputable sources often have websites, and the subjects of articles sometimes have their own, which are acceptable as sources with certain provisos. OTOH, forums and blogs which contain unknown and changing content are never acceptable. Rumiton (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * @Msalt: Your question about Say we see a web site that lists a bunch of reputable sources documenting harsh criticisms. In these cases, rather than using the website as a source, you can explore the reputable sources listed there and assess their suitability for inclusion, as per arguments presented by Rumiton and Momento above, which is based on our content policies pof WP:V, WP:BLP, and others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Good call. I guess in this article, the question arises as to whether a web site such as I describe can be included as an external link.  I don't really see anyone advocating the use of web sites like that as sources for contentious material in the article.  Where we do use them, it seems to be for unchallenged items such as existence of the satellite broadcasts. Msalt (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, such websites are not appropriate to be linked to. That is the opinion voiced by several editors here and in other noticeboards, an opinion that is based on WP:BLP and WP:EL. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. But I thought you said earlier EL's containing criticism (if well and verifiably documented) were OK. Here you seem to say that the very existence of criticism makes a website inappropriate as an EL.  Am I misreading your comments?  Msalt (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Was just about to write the same sort of comment as Msalt's (but got ec'd). Msalt, indeed, in the external links section, we wouldn't provide links to dozens of webpages containing each separate aspect of what has already been covered in references. If a website is an acceptable summary of such material, we provide the single link. And we try to keep the external links section balanced too: it shouldn't give a disproportionate image of what's available on the web, in no direction. It is recommended in Wikipedia EL guidance to use external links that are not yet used as sources in the article: this also excludes to repeat sources that are used directly in the article again in the EL section (for instance, we wouldn't link to Melton sources, available online, in the external links section when they're already used as sources in the article) - a website that summarizes would be OK, even if it also contains material that are too much minutae compared to what we consider notable enough to be mentioned in the article itself. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is recommended in Wikipedia EL guidance to use external links that are not yet used as sources in the article. Not really. Per WP:EL (my highlight): Wikipedia articles may include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the third paragraph of the lead section of WP:EL:"The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources."Note also, WP:EL#Links to be considered, #4:"Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."--Francis Schonken (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, but the EL guideline cannot trump policy. And if a site violates WP:BLP then the fact that it may contain material sourced to reliable sources, is moot. If there is such sourced material in that site, one can make a case for including that source, but we avoid linking to it. An extreme example to illustrate my point, the Stormfront website may have a list of sources or newspaper articles about an orthodox Jew that has committed a crime, but we do not link to it on that orthodox Jew's bio in WIkipedfia, do we?  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Fascinating discussion, thanks all. I think the reason we wouldn't link to the Stormfront would not be whether or not it included valid sources,, but because it is not reliable and is of course hate speech.  (I've been on the other end of that exchange, having Stormfront or some page like that link to MY web page with a favorable comment, just because it criticised mainstream politicians.  Yikes!)


 * I'm troubled by the idea that we can't link to a website unless it also meets BLP. Wikipedia imposes very strict standards on itself, for good reason, but some of these standards are not required for verifiability.  For example, on this talk page Momento argued that we couldn't link to a site because it contained original research.  That's a Wikipedia standard, but in fact it seems like original research is exactly what we seek from our sources (provided they are reliable.)  Similary, we impose extremely strict standards on our BLPs, but I'm not sure it makes a website or book unreliable or unverifiable if it doesn't share those very strict standards. I'm not sure any websites on earth about Prem Rawat would meet a strict reading of BLP, other than one he published himself, and only then because self-published sites are granted exemption from some of these standards.  Thoughts? Msalt (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding your second paragraph, Msalt, this might clarify a bit: (aka the brainfart - no offense taken).
 * In short, we need secondary sources to establish notability; once notability (with all the connotations attached to it in Wikipedia context) is established, a topic can be included in the encyclopedia. Then, and only then, it can also be illustrated by a measured amount of primary sources. Thus, a two step approach. Compare WP:PSTS (policy). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't be troubled, Msalt. It makes sense, it has been agred upon by other editors, as this is standard practice. From WP:BLP: Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link. Questionable sources reads: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources. Also note that WP:SELFPUB self-published sources are acceptable on articles about themselves, with some caveats.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the specifics of the external links discussed. I created this section to try to reach some common ground on the broader policy issues, as a foundation for reaching consensus on specifics. The point that I'm not sure you've addressed, Jossi, is the gulf between the very strict requirements of BLP, and "questionable sources." In my opinion, very few of the acknowledged reliable sources would meet all of the requirements of BLP. But they don't have to, as long as they do NOT have a poor reputation for fact-checking, their views are NOT widely acknowledged as extremist, they are not promotional, and they do not rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.

To take this away from the specifics of the case at hand, I would say that my own website "The Skeleton Closet" [www.realchange.org] is a reliable source that does not meet BLP but would be valid as an external link. And indeed, it IS used as an external link by a number of Wikipedia pages. Everything I list comes from a reliable source, generally books or leading newspapers and magazines. I add some POV but the views are certainly not extremist, and they all rely heavily on well-documented facts. Original research is the perfect example-- perfectly acceptable, indeed welcomed in a reliable source but not acceptable in Wikipedia under BLP. Don't you think? Msalt (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You make me smile, Msalt. To continue with the good start you have made here, I think you are going to have to separate your Wiki editor self from your other, scandal reporting persona. I think you can do it, others have achieved cleavings like that without becoming terminally schizoid. I just had a look at your Skeleton site and found it to be an immaculate example of the kind of external link that Wikipedia must avoid like the Black Death. Case in point, chosen at random (and I never even heard of this chap) Gary Bauer: This righteous little guy took tens of thousands of dollars from the Moonies, dodged the draft and is alleged to be having an affair with a twenty-something woman, despite his marriage of 27 years. I should not even be quoting that in this public talk page, it breaks just about every Wikipedia rule there is, not just BLP. I am sure after the discussion so far you can see the problems for yourself. Not that there is not a place for Skeletons, and other websites like it. Wikipedia just isn't that place. Rumiton (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please be WP:CIVIL in these discussions. Inflammatory language and belittling statements such as "I think you can do it" are not what this article needs at the moment.  Content-wise, OK you've found a summary that is probably over-written.  Sorry.  But it is summarizing a detailed discussion of those criticisms that is supported by reliable sources with hyperlinks to each, on a non-partisan, public, signed and long-running web page, published by an organization and written by an editor who answers nearly every email and often corrects or improves content from those emails.
 * What exactly are you objecting to? The fact that the page summarizes criticisms?  A bit of purple writing you managed to find? I think you continue to make the mistake of imposing Wikipedia's standards on every source mentioned on Wikipedia.  Can you address the example of original research?  Do you think we shouldn't link to any web site that contains OR? Msalt (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I appear to belittle, that was not my intention. I was just trying to say that putting some of our other pursuits behind us is crucial to a neutral Wikipedia result. eg, I was in the Australian military for a long time in a fairly senior career position, and in private I am a fierce defender of the Australian military record, and for that matter, Australia in general. Yet I hope and believe the Australian and US Navy articles I have edited have not reflected this. I have just tried to improve the focus on the issues at hand. And yes, I DO believe, especially in the case of a living person, that any place we send our readers to becomes a part of the article, and needs to be of just as high a quality as the article itself. If you or I were to become the subjects of a Wikipedia article (don't laugh, such things can happen) I believe we would become firmly of the same opinion. Rumiton (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think I have any difficulty separating the hats I wear as publisher of a website, and as Wikipedia editor, nor do I think I am being particularly defensive of your criticism (though I'm sure some would disagree.) The only reason I mention my site is that I think, as it happens, it is almost an ideal-typical example of the kind of website I am curious about -- well-documented and non-partisan yet critical.  If it helps the hypothetical, imagine a similar but better website with all snark removed and the most impeccable sources possible, a sort of online encylcopedia of religious figures -- by Melton, if you like -- that summarizes criticisms of them from a meticulously fair witness POV.  Say, a Snopes.com for criticism of spiritual teachers.  Quality would not be the issue.
 * Do you think such a site would be permissible, or is the focus on criticism by itself disqualifying? And why would original research on such a site would make it less acceptable? Msalt (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The insurmountable problem is, who decides a website is "well-documented and non-partisan yet critical"? You? Me? Someone's ex? That's why "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.Momento (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Still, I'm not the least bit impressed by your endless recitation of policies and guidelines. But that troubles me not. What troubles me is your usurpation of consensus, where there is none – aided by dubious quotes of input by others, that did not establish consensus either. For instance you refer to a WP:ANI discussion. Here's the link to it: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive370. Six people participate. Three defend your stance. Three defend my stance. On each side *one* uninvolved. The arguments of Relata refero and of ThuranX (both on your side in this debate) were copied above to . And rebutted (that is to say, Relata refero's was; ThuranX's is so full of unclear and unfounded depreciating comments that it is still waiting above for a clarification). And then you're building on this "hearsay" to make it sound as if this was some kind of unalterable "consensus" established above our heads. Will not do. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus cannot trump policies, Francis, and my point is that linking to these sites breaches established policies and guidelines/ If there is a need to clarify policy and there is no agreement on how to apply it, then will need to take this to the next step in dispute resolution, which I proposed a week ago. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:Consensus is policy. The only policy that can not be trumped by consensus, and explicitly so, is Neutral Point of View. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, there are ArbCom precedents about this issue, that supports the arguments made by me and others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Applies, explicitly, to the Sathya Sai Baba article. Extrapolation of ArbCom rulings beyond their original scope is discouraged (there are some comments by arbitrators about that, could look up the links if you need them). Anyway, from that same ruling: "It is inappropriate for a user to insert a link to a website maintained by the user (or in which the user plays an important role)." So, again, I ask you to clarify what I asked above in . --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ArbCom decions are no case law, but they represent best practices and applications of policy. As I am not adding any links myself, your question is unnecessary harassment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You added links to the talk page, still recently. The Sathya Sai Baba ruling you linked to explicitly states "...and talk pages". That the Sathya Sai Baba ruling (which is also a content ruling disfavoured by more recent arbitrators) does not apply was brought forward by me in your defense too. Nonetheless, I'm going to ask about your affiliation to Rawat-related websites whenever I think this pertains to the discussion at hand (I mean when the unclarity about it lingers above the discussion). Of course, you're free to answer or not. The insights you provided in the pages linked from my user talk page give no clear answer to the question I asked. So I feel free to ask too. And will take no anathema, or worse, on the issue. I mean, it would be better for us to learn from yourself what this is all about, than read distorted information about it on other websites. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Have I added external links to this page? If I had, it was in the context of sources requested by you or others. And I have asked you politely to stop asking questions that you should know better than not to ask. And do not give me any BS about good intentions, because I see none, Francis. I think you are crossing a line that you should not with that line of questioning. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF, I do so on you. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * discuss the edits, and not the editor; also from WP:COI: Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute.  Enough said. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Re. "discuss the edits, and not the editor", please then, retract the two last sentences of your edit above (23:48, 25 February 2008) --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Another arbCom case [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think if the article we were working on were George W. Bush or Barrack Obama, anonymous DomainsByProxy sites reporting hearsay would not even be considered as suitable external links for an encyclopedia, and I can't see why this article should be different. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 22:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Hearsay"? And where did that OR conclusion come from? See, regarding "hearsay", my comment above to Jossi's use of "hearsay". --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Frances, let me give you some hypothetical examples: If someone started an anonymous DomainsbyProxy website and wrote about you that you used to be an 'alcoholic' and that they carried you up the stairs of your home on various occasions, or if they allege that you smoked cannabis every night of the week in November 1983, isn't that Hearsay in United States law? As for anonymous websites making defamatory statements, I believe that GoDaddy.com and DomainsbyProxy will only reveal the identity of an anonymous online defamer if you can prove that the statements made about you are false. Now, how would you go about proving that such statements are false? What redress would you have? -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as you welcome my input I thought I might add that as a reasonably earnest truth-seeking and ethical person I personally wanted to know about the veracity of those statements from Michael Dettmers and so arranged to meet him and ask for myself. I would make my own mind up. He told me personally all of those things and more, and importantly, that he was not afraid to stand by his words. In fact he said he welcomed Maharaji to sue him for defamation. Dettmers subsequently put his name to all the 'hearsay' he published on these websites. He personally told me that he knew Prem Rawat wouldn't sue him because essentially he was telling the truth. Make of it what you will. As far as I know, all those reports were made not on an anonymous website but on ex-premie.org and the ex-premie forum. Those are not anonymous Domainsby Poxy sites are they? And none of the people who made allegations mentioned above chose to be anonymous -quite the opposite. Sure these things have been denied by the organisations and are dismissed as hearsay but did they sue for defamation? Talking of redress, Jayen. Don't you think Rawat who has indeed sued critics who 'slipped up' and actually committed an offence, would not hesitate to sue these people if he had a case? He has had that option for legal redress as would anyone who was slandered publicly by known persons. PatW (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Pat, thanks for making the enquiries. However, please try to see the bigger picture. You say that many of these statements attributed to Dettmers and Mishler on the anonymous, self-published website can be sourced to posts on ex-premie forums. If we accept information derived from such sources here, then it should be according to a principle that could equally find application in any other Wikipedia article on any other notable figure. We cannot make special rules specifically for this article. Now, internet forums, blogs and self-published websites are explicitly excluded as reliable sources according to present Wikipedia policy, especially so where the allegations made are derogatory or otherwise contentious. The same goes for first-hand personal knowledge – it is inadmissible as a source in Wikipedia. The standard is verifiability, not truth. And a forum post or a self-published website explicitly does not meet Wikipedia's verifiability criteria. What Dettmers says may very well be the truth. But would this be so in any case where an anonymous website repeats an allegation made by a person in an Internet forum? Most definitely not. I do not see how including such information, even as an External Link, could possibly be compatible with WP policies and guidelines. Try to think of the potential abuses that could and would occur if a principle were established that anonymously hosted renditions of allegations made in Internet forums qualified for inclusion in an encyclopedia. It just doesn't work. Wikipedia cannot be in the business of repeating unpublished, personal recollections of a person. I know that it is very trying, but I am sure you can see the validity of the principle if you transpose it to the article on any other person than the one we are dealing with here. Best wishes, Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 14:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Jayen, I perfectly well understand this and have never sought to include this material here. I just don't quite understand the perception that ex-premie.org is anonymous or whether you are aware of the following. There is an interview with Mr Dettmers published on ex-premie.org  Ex-premie.org  published that interview with his permission. That is a quite separate thing to his forum posts of course. Why do say ex-premie.org is anonymous? Maybe it's a technical thing I'm unaware of but I thought that the people in charge were quite transparent about their identities. I have no idea where all this is going but I personally think that the rules are being wielded so literally and with Jossi's ever-present COI as such a major factor that a fair article simply cannot be achieved. IMHO This constant contesting ad nauseam can only be broken if some higher level Wiki consensus is brought to bear. I have no confidence to do anything other than sit in the wings and hope that this happens. Frankly as long as Jossi's 'clarity' about WP rules is enforced everybody is apparently impotent and wasting their wisdom. I like a debate where consensus can be reached but that is plainly not in Jossi's equation. PatW (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How many warnings need to be issued to you by how many editors, for you to stop making such comments? FYI, there is no "high-level consensus". This is it, and as painful and tedious as it may be, that is the way it works. There are no shortcuts to WP:CONSENSUS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Pat, I was referring to the anonymous registration of one of the websites (www.prem-rawat-maharaji.info/). If some of the material hosted there, or in the ex-premie forum, is taken from another source, and that source can be considered reliable, then the material could be included. A source doesn't become unreliable by being quoted on a website that is unreliable. It's just that you would look up and quote the source directly then. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 02:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The argument was rebutted above, at . Note that you're making statements, that are in no way anonymous, seem like they're anonymous. Distortion of information. And rebutted, while referenced in the source to material published elsewhere (in sources found reliable enough to act as references *until this day* in the Prem Rawat article), with name and everything to it. No, straw man argument, and again, starting the same argument, that was already discussed in another section and rebutted, apparently not according to your liking there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please also inform yourself of OCILLA, material can be taken down much easier than what you "believe". --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. You may have argued against it, but that does not make it a rebuttal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, if you want to contest it, do so above, then we can see whether your doubts match up to the arguments already provided. I really dislike this method of running away from a discussion when you run out of arguments, and start a new one in a new spot, proposing the same arguments as if nothing had been said yet. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my arguments in that section have already been made. If repeated theme here, so what? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, in the end it starts to amount to some sort of trolling.
 * Don't be surprised that I reiterate my argument, again, that you should probably be disqualified from taking part in the decision of which EL's are listed in the Prem Rawat article. You have a professional interest in Rawat-related websites. You don't want to clarify how profound that interest is, but from all we know it is professional. You don't get to decide on the representation of your competitors' websites in Wikipedia. No amount of forumshopping, wikilawyering on BLP, NPA and other policies/guidelines, etc can alleviate that situation, unless you're prepared to clarify the situation and we take it from there.
 * PS: above I asked you to remove a PA. I insist. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that DMCA compliance and OCILLA enable a copyright owner or trademark holder to effect removal of infringing information from a website. However, this does not lift the anonymity of the website owner. The owner has to comply, otherwise the ISP takes down their site, but their identity is not revealed to the complainant. As far as I know, DMCA and OCILLA have no application when it comes to taking down defamatory, as opposed to infringing, material. Taking down defamatory material and having the identity of an anonymous defamer revealed is, from what I have read, a fairly complicated process. The first problem is that courts are reluctant to assume jurisdiction, since by definition, the location of the anonymous website owner is unknown. If, for example, it should turn out that they are abroad, the court may find that they started a proceeding that falls outside their competence. The other difficulty, already alluded to earlier, is that the plaintiff must be able to prove conclusively that the information given is factually wrong (the interests of the complainant are balanced against the right to free and anonymous speech on the Internet). Delivering such proof may involve considerable difficulty, especially where the allegations made are of a personal nature and/or concern events which occurred some time ago and were not subject to any public record. In addition, there is the fact that any attempt to take legal measures will also involve publicity, which will ensure that the allegations gain much wider currency than they otherwise would. In such a case, it is possible to win the lawsuit but still lose the battle, since, to put it simply, mud sticks. For example, I can remember several cases where celebrities were accused of sex crimes; even in those cases where it was subsequently found that the accusation was malicious or unfounded, what the public remembers is the association with a sex crime. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 18:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I ask again, to consider the next step of dispute resolution, if we can find no agreement on the application of WP:BLP and WP:EL to these anonymous sites. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with you Jossi. Unless BLP policy is changed, self-published websites can never be linked to a BLP.Momento (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal
I'm sure every one agrees that Nik Wright2's addition of 12,000 bytes of undiscussed material is unacceptable. I suggest we demonstrate our commitment to proper editing behavior by asking that this page be un-protected and that Nik agrees not to edit for a week.Momento (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This page was protected globally for a reason. I think there are others besides Nik Wright2 editing disruptively. Msalt (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Everyone except one, perhaps. What Nik Wright did was fine by me. I'm sure everyone agrees that not everyone agrees with Momento, who is perhaps making unwaranted assumptions about what everyone agrees about, agreed? 147.114.226.172 (talk) 11:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Articles are always protected on the "wrong version". There've been a lot of "silly edit wars" on this article. Why don't we resolve some of those before we worry about removing the page protection. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I read Nik's edit in its entirety and only a couple of small passages are problematic. Look, guys, may I remind you that the POV-pushing on this page was so bad that it attracted media attention (the recent Register article).  I would have thought that that spotlight would have ended it.  But, judging from the comments on this talk page, the blatent POV-pushing is still going on.  The fact that Will had to take an LATimes article on how much Rawat paid for his house to the reliable sources noticeboard is ridiculous.  Will appears to be on the right track here to help make this article NPOV.  Some of you need to follow his lead. Cla68 (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is not if the edit by that user is problematic or not. The issue is that the user bypassed discussions by taking an unilateral approach, and on top of that he edit-warred, while other editors had the common sense to work in developing consensus. That is "blatent" (sic) disruption.  As for the article your refer to, you from all people should know the anti-Wikipedia slant of that journalist, who has attacked Wikipedia, its aims, its processes, its editors, and its founder, and to bring this to this page is most disingenuous of you. Or is it that you believe that I belong to "the Wikipedia elite", that I belong to the cabal of "uber-admins", and that Wikipedia policy is shaped by individuals? Utter nonsense.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The LA Times and The Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America (Dr. J. Gordon Melton editor) are in conflict. The LA Times says Rawat purchased it, Dr. Melton says "Premies purchased an estate in Malibu into which the couple moved". So who do you believe? WP:VER says "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources" and that is why the LA Times article is, in this case, the less reliable source. If this material is important enough to go in the article, and I don't believe it is, it should be right, BLP Policy is clear - "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space". This used to be one of the most meticulously sourced articles in Wiki. Every important fact was either undisputed or sourced from academic works. Now we have the LA Times, the Fifth Estate and the Rushton Daily Leader. I guess some editors approach is that the proper response to the Register beat up is to become more like The Register and less like an encyclopedia. Looking forward to the ads Momento (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The L.A. Times article doesn't actually indicate who purchased the residence. A better phrasing would be:
 * In November of 1974 he moved into a secluded home in Malibu, California that was purchased for $400,000.
 * I'd think that the local paper would be a better source for real estate deals than a book about cults. However I don't see any real dispute between Melton and the L.A. Times on this issue. Just because we use award-winning newspapers for sources doesn't mean the article can't be meticulously sourced. Scholarly books don't necessarily represent all significant viewpoints.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin correctly pointed out on the noticeboard that if two reliable sources contradict each other, and this may not actually be the case here, you can just include information from both with explanations. So, there's evidently no reason to be arguing anymore here over this information from this particular source.  I'm sure that solves the issue here, right?  I mean, there's no COI issues going on here that would prevent someone from agreeing with this, right Jossi? Cla68 (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Right jossi? (I feel ought to show my hand here. I contend that if I want jossi not to answer some question then all I have to do is ask it because he has decided that I am not worth answering. This provides me with some leverage that I hope I can use to help rid wikipedia of the unwanted bias provided here by Mr Rawat's marketing professional, namely jossi. A marketing man's silence speaks loads.) 147.114.226.172 (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin is correct, IMO. We should include all significant points of view, even if they disagree. Or, as Yogi Berra said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Will Beback, please note that previous version contained and abundance of opposing statements between sources. Then Vassyana criticized the article for lack of balance, because of that. Andries (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * To Cla68. Please don't "remind" us about ideas we may strongly disagree with. The Register article you refer to used the strong adherence to Wikipedia principles previously on this article as an excuse for a paid journalist to earn himself some money and fame by doing a Wikipedia-bashing article. ALL the allegations he raised have been debunked. All of them. This article is now about 100 times as biased as it was a month ago, and Nik Wright2's contributions are largely to blame for it. Rumiton (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is the swing of the pendulum between opposing factions. The more unscrupulous faction in reverting etc. seems to win. Andries (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody's winning here Andries I think. Succeed in producing an unbalanced article certainly has the appearance of failure because this is a public space and people are not so stupid.PatW (talk) 10:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So Ruminto, Jossi has said above he's not interested in answering a straight question. Perhaps you will. You say you disagree with all the criticism aimed at this article. How would you propose to proceed towards fair balance? By having only the team of followers finish the article? (a situation that was approximated as you say a month ago). How fair would that be?  Listen, I don't want to see an article full of unsubstantial hearsay etc. any more than you.  I really don't! I have school age kids who use WP regularly and they deserve a trustworthy resource. This is about fairness  and so, as relatively unbiased people have pointed out, there needs to be some give from followers who seem entrenched in a highly defensive posture, maybe because they are feeling the pressure of existing criticism -whether for right or wrong. I happen to think my report above (that was censored) was actually quite on topic. I reported about how someone who publicly questioned Rawat was quickly censored. Immediately someone called VivK cast this as a typical example of  inappropriate violation of Prem Rawat and followers rights by critics.  What I object to is that the same predisposition towards censorship (not including critical information or reports that have  disrespectful tone etc) is demonstrated here. Where do critics have a right to a voice? Not even here via reputable sources like the LA Times apparently. I think that it would be a disaster if the article was dominated by any opposing factions. That is why I so welcome and will stand aside for non-factional editors here. I strongly feel that your attempts to control  and reinterpret information here border heavily on a more sinister attempt to distort truth and throttle freedom of speech.  The game Jossi and I are playing is that of 'not editing' to demonstrate some good faith in that direction.  I question the sincerity of Jossi in this respect since his comments to Nick above "Guess which will be the first edits to go" etc plainly indicate that he can affect change here quite easily just by backing up edits he approves of (done by Momento etc.)  I openly confess that my presence here is more or less to raise objections to this dynamic. Discussing the edits has become an almost futile pursuit because frankly you guys are so intransigent. You are basically saying 'you might as well leave us followers to it because we are the only ones who a) know and follow the WP rules and b) who are capable of fairly representing Prem Rawat. Don't you see how unfair that looks? PatW (talk) 10:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Pat, it would be great if you could just write down your thoughts in a sincere and simple way. I always get the impression you are trying to impress someone with the high dudgeon of your writing, and it only makes a thoughtful reply more difficult. I think the thrust of your question is What would I like to see this article look like? First, as a practising premie, I have never been happy with it in any of its forms. It has never reflected the reality of my last 36 years as a student of Maharaji's. It does not describe the dimension of heart feeling that the experience of Knowledge gives to my life, nor the role Maharaji has played in making that a reality. It makes no measure of how many others have had a similar experience. It also has not properly acknowledged the turbulence of the early years, when guru-worship, vegetarianism, renunciation, asceticism and the whole suffocating cloud of Indiana were imported and presented to us by a 12 year-old who could not have been expected to know better, aided by a bunch of adults who could have been so expected. I would like it if this article could look at the extraordinary growth that has taken place, from the first culturally doomed western offshoot of Hinduism into the rich resource for inward encouragement that it now is, and if it could find a way to acknowledge that through these changes Prem Rawat has remained a master to his students, but in the friendliest and most benevolent sense. To Wikipedia, my views are irrelevant, since we do not yet have sources that tell us about these things. Rumiton (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well said; although I find it hard to believe that none of the numerous academic studies available should have found space to represent this point of view, which IMO belongs in this article as much as any criticism. Basically, if I read an article related to a religion or a new religious movement in Wikipedia, I would like to be able to gain a rough understanding of its internal logic, of what moves its members, of why the movement and its founder represent such an inspiration to them, what the founder's teachings consist of, and how this teaching is applied by its adherents. Academic studies usually attempt to address this in a (more or less) neutral manner, newspapers don't.
 * In my view, the present version by Nik has taken us further away from an NPOV article. The narrative is garbled, repetitive (we now have the foot kissing twice!), confusing, goes off at numerous tangents, all the while missing the heart of the phenomenon in multiple ways. Just looking at the time line from "Interegnum" (sic) onwards, we go from 1975 (before/after) to late 1976 back to 1975 (before/after) to early 1976 to late 1976. Even after triple reading it is difficult for the reader to get any sense of the developments and changes that ocurred. In an age of religious diversity, Wikipedia can do better than that.
 * Rawat's teachings should be covered in more detail, based on academic sources, with some relevant quotes from him. Criticism, wealth issues, ridiculing statements etc. should in my view be kept out of the main narrative and reviewed under Reception, along with reception of the teaching among his followers. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 17:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Rumiton, it is perfectly valid to indicate that, for some (though no one will say quite how many, which is suspicious), the 'drug' that Mr Rawat's message provides, is jolly nice, as you have found. A more detached viewpoint might be that the incredibly nice Mr Rawat has hit upon a means of supporting himself that relies upon very strict control of information about the ways in which he operates. The Prem Rawat article surely should be about the man himself and how he operates rather than about how his techniques are perceived by acolytes. The Prem Rawat article need merely mention in passing that there are an unspecified (though it would seem, diminishing) number of people who are passionate supporters, willingly giving up material possessions to help him promulgate his message and, by some mysterious and unspecified means, enabling him to keep on practising flying himself about without having to pay personally for the fuel. It should also mention that there are other people who absolutely hate what he is up to, believing that it can destroy families and lives. The issue seems to be that if any validity is provided to the antis, then the pros feel slighted, and their masters feel threatened because it might put people off 'promising to keep in touch', thereby reducing revenues to Prem Rawat's money collecting apparatuses. Is there any reason why genuine seekers after truth shouldn't be given the opportunity to make up their own minds, heeding, if they want, the global warning of the antis and thereby, some might hope, incidentally reducing the global warming caused by the erstwhile guru? There will always be gullible people, but wikipedia is one place where facts can be presented such that the gullible are reasonably protected if they bother to read what's written.147.114.226.172 (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I just carefully read what you have written and found nothing worth responding to. Rumiton (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Pat, you are playing animal balloons with other people's words again. I cast no such thing you attributed to me, merely presented what actually happened at Alexandra Palace to allow any sane observer to note how laughingly corrupt your version of that woman's offensive interruption of that (otherwise extremely inspiring) event was. Try and get it, what part of the word 'offensive' don't you understand? Your response to Rumi above clearly indicates that you believe PR's entire life is dedicated to keeping his income flow happening. That is corrupt thinking in its saddest form, the lack of understanding about money in your own life experience is frightening to the 'detached' observer, seriously scary. Unless that is, you are drunk, or joking about Prem's reasons for travelling more miles in a year than you do in a decade, just to talk to people, most of whom have none of your precious money to give him. However, I agree with our masked highbrow intellect below, I too fail to see how any self respecting academic would bother to analyse the business model espoused by Prem Rawat for packaging his messages ??? I can only wild guess how profound and deep one must be to come up with such a peircing and penetrating point as that. To those with less anger and self importance clogging up their digestive system Prem Rawat's teachings are about as intellectual as a wild stallion galloping across a prairie. The mainstream media can be a source of meaningful information about a galloping horse? How about being there watching the animal, how about being ON it? And you pompously judge others as brainwashed! You who are so terrified of the agents of the evil Dark One. What a childish, pointless conversation you are having with yourself user number 147 .VivK (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Has anyone asked why on earth any self-respecting academic would bother to consider and analyse the business model espoused by Prem Rawat for packaging his messages, particularly if the few serious commentators who have looked into the matter have declared that the so-called teaching is devoid of intellectual content anyway. I imagine most academics would have better things to do and would find it hard to obtain funding for such fruitless studies. Therefore the mainstream media are effectively the only source from which to glean any meaningful information that might help inform people people of what Mr Rawat is really about. The way the devotees operate to control information here in this 'free' resource in wikipedia shows just how much they are themselves brainwashed and the presence of their marketing professional, jossi, how vulnerable their business model is to the truth.147.114.226.172 (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that's not entirely fair. There is a wealth of academic studies: ; to say that newspapers are the only source available for use here seems far off the mark.  Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 17:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

VivK and Ruminton both talk about the insights and wonderful feelings that come from Rawats teachings. Please remember that I have practised his Knowledge sincerely since age 17 and also spoke in such gushing terms and do not deny any of it. My criticisms are much more down to earth and I think that is also what 147 was driving at. I don't think his reservations or suspicions are about the nature of the experience (visa vi your 'galloping horse' simile). In many ordinary peoples minds there are doubts that have arisen from reading newspaper portrayals of Rawat or negative comments from critics. Should they simply cast these doubts aside or can you help them see why such things are irrelevant or ill-founded? Followers should maybe not expect the uninitiated public to appreciate or necessarily accept the wondrous nature of the experience on your word. Your being cross at people for asking questions that are disrespectful of Rawat (in your view) itself smacks of religious intolerance. There has to be a balance between religion demanding respect from society/Wikipedia, and society/Wikipedia demanding transparency from religion. You want Prem Rawat to be treated with same respect here that you accord him then let the well-documented criticisms be aired here and face them. Provide the answers. Why be afraid? Jayen rightly wants the followers perspective aired here. Yes people want to know what's so great about his teachings. They also want to be aware of the main criticisms of him so as to get a balanced picture. Lets aim for that shall we? PatW (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * PatW, you write as if you speak for "the ordinary person" ("In many ordinary peoples minds there are doubts that have arisen from reading newspaper portrayals of Rawat or negative comments from critics.") But there are many "ordinary people" who do not have those doubts. No-one is asking that people cast doubts aside. Clearly, you have not enjoyed Knowledge (so why didn't you stop practising a long time ago?) so there is no problem. Put it aside and move on. But many people enjoy knowledge, and are not "brainwashed". You claim to have practised knowledge, yet you still believe that such practise has something to do with religion. I suggest to you that many people who practise knowledge would laugh at that claim, and would wonder at your claim of "religion". I've practised knowledge since I was 22, and that was a long time ago. I know that knowledge has nothing to do with religion. I'm happy that anyone be made aware of the fact that some people haven't enjoyed knowledge, and have found it unhelpful. But because knowledge was not right for you, doesn't mean that it is not right for others. You want people to disrespect knowledge and Rawat because you do. I want people to respect Rawat if they benefit from his teaching. Armeisen (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Who do you think you are to patronisingly tell me to 'put aside' my criticisms of Prem Rawat, No I won't and neither will many other people. I object to your putting down my experience (even though you have absolutely NO idea about my personal experiences) apparently because you simply cannot entertain that other option which is that there could be just a little substance to people's criticisms. If people who practice knowledge or Rawat himself laugh at the suggestion that their practices are religious fine. Scholars of new religions often actually note how one of the very things that characterise new religions and their leaders is their insistence that they are nothing to do with religion. They suggest that the explanation for this phenomena is that the leaders are keen to disassociate from their roots so as to better establish their own autonomy. To me that is exactly what Rawat has done and is doing. The explanation I was given as a new premie in 1974 was that 'Jesus, Buddha, Krishna,Mohammed did not preach religion' their subsequent followers wrongly later turned it into one. And that Rawat, as a similar 'Master' was not preaching religion but revealing a direct experience. We were told that only a living 'Perfect Master' can show you the living religion and that religion without the living Master was dead. That's what we were told and that's what the followers of Rawat's father were also told and what most followers of most Sant Mat tradition adherents were told. 'Religion thus becomes almost a dirty word. However it was subsequently quite clear to me (and obviously many others) that there were many religious aspects to the whole thing (ie beliefs and adherence to tenets that Jossi denies). Rawat may have gradually got rid of the appearance that there are no beliefs or suggestions made to followers about who he is or what he experience of knowledge is but I don't personally think that amounts to it not being a form of religion ie. a new style religion. One category that Rawat currently does not deny is that he is some kind of 'Master' (having gradually dropped the former 'Perfect Master bit). Also there are promissary commitments made to Rawat regarding the practice of knowledge. What this seems to be all about is the reluctance of Rawat or followers to be categorised. I agree that the best balance would be to accurately report the characterisation of Rawat by scholars and also report Rawats denials.PatW (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * References calling DLM or Elan Vital a religious movement are legion. The techniques had their origin in a religious tradition. So the view that Knowledge hasn't got anything to do with religion would seem to be a minority view – fine to mention it in the article – but you cannot reasonably expect EV's description as a religious movement to be banished from the article, much less so the talk page. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 00:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to add to Jayen's comments, Elan Vital, the organisation that has supported Rawat's work for the past 36 years, is registered as a church in the US. --John Brauns (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether references calling those organisations a religion are "legion" or not is irrelevant. The chaplain ("Black Will") at the school I attended had this wonderful saying: "Every since the crucifixion of Christ, the majority have been in the wrong." Not necessarily accurate, of course, but of relevance here. I would suggest to you that the religions had their origins in the techniques; that is, the techniques preceded religion. How do you come up with the claim that Knowledge hasn't got anything to do with religion is a "minority view"? Do you know how many people practise knowledge? I'm sure that the majority would support the statement that knowledge has nothing to do with religion. I don't recall asking for anything to be banned. No evidence for that, Jayen. Would be good not to attribute claims to me that I have not made; it only undermines your credibility as an editor. Armeisen (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How do you come up with the claim that Knowledge hasn't got anything to do with religion is a "minority view"? I believe it to be a minority view (at least) in the published sources that we are required to reflect here. Personally, I have no problem understanding that it isn't religious to you, or doesn't feel "religious"; to you it is a practical and empirical part of your life. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 01:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * DLM and Elan Vital have been described as New religious movements. Elan Vital in its FAQ, states that it the practice of Knowledge is compatible with all religions (Maharaji's Knowledge is compatible with and independent of any lifestyle, culture, religion, or belief system). Prem Rawat himself says that the practice of Knowledge is not a religion. These viewpoints are presented already in the respective articles, as well as their legal status. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In the United States, there is a process to register as a religion (which brings substantial benefits on taxes and protection from government interference.) If John Braun's statement is true, that would seem to settle the question.  On the other hand, it's pretty clear that we would need a reliable source for what is obviously a controversial point.
 * Otherwise, accepted reliable sources call EV a "new religious movement" as Jossi says. Denials by Rawat or EV could be added to contrast that (if self-published) but I think it would be wrong to remove such a reliably sourced description.  Perhaps it should be tied to the narrative of Westernization.  EG " Elan Vital is described by Melton and others as a "new religious movement" (cites), though Prem Rawat has said that the practice of Knowledge is not a religion. (cite)"  Fair compromise? Msalt (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd like to know how Melton defines "a new religious movement". It sounds good to say it, but someone who has access to the books should be able to tell us how Melton describes a religious movement. I believe too that there is quite a distinction between a "religious movement" and a "religion". Again, it will depend on how it is described/defined. So could someone enlighten us? Armeisen (talk) 09:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * To my way of thinking, a religion involves a set of tenets to which adherents subscribe; that is, a belief system. However, if religion is seen to be "the quest for the values of the ideal life", or "the manifestation of such feeling in conduct or life", (Macquarie Dictionary), then I guess Maharaji's work is covered in that kind of general description (as distinct from definition). In my experience, Knowledge is compatible with all religions, without being one. In that respect, I am in agreement with you, Jossi. Armeisen (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes but as Jossi once told me it is not our way of thinking that count here. I'm glad you seem to agree then that Maharaji's work falls fairly into the dictionary definition of a 'religion' ie. belief, in, recognition of, or an awakened sense if, a higher unseen controlling powers: rites or .worship  (NB. annually held Guru Puja (Puja='worship' yes?). The only possible reason you can object to it being described that way is because you don't like being lumped in with other religions I guess.  Your argument about being compatible with other religions without being one is interesting. Have you considered the possibility that maybe, (since we've categorically established that it IS a religion by definition) Knowledge is compatible with all religions and is also one itself? Also please note that your worries maybe unsubstantiated since of course all different religions are in fact different but are still called 'religions'. So Rawat's is just a nice 'different' religion. Is that an acceptable situation or does he deserve a dictionary category all of his own because he's so clearly distinct to all English speaking people? Do you think that an encyclopedia should lean towards broad categories that everyone understands or towards cryptic ones thought up by religious groups who want to be in another category? I mean what category do you guys think Prem Rawat would like to be? Does Humanitarian Leader perhaps work for you? How does that sit with all his past teachings and the way he was perceived?  PatW (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see my response to Msalt above. Armeisen (talk) 09:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to be enlightened as to the distinction between a religion and a new religious movement in this context I suggest you read 'Radhasoami Reality' by Mark Jurgensmeyer. A religion has connotations of orthodoxy and general acceptance. A 'new religious movement' is essentially almost always an offshoot of an earlier religion as Rawat absolutely undeniably is. Even Jossi will confirm (as author of PR's earlier website) that Rawat himself endorsed the belief that he was the latest of a series of 'living masters' that descend from very particular and named illustrious Sikh Gurus like Guru Nanak etc. The exact lineage that Prem Rawat claimed (possibly wishfully imho) is well documented and I suggest that it could be very helpful to reference it here. Thoughts Msalt, Francis, Jayen et al? Rawat's own wording on his site was 'This is the history thus far' or words to that effect, and there followed a named list of his predecessors including of course his father, Swarupanand and others.. Jossi would you like to provide the exact lineage he claimed on his site? Why was that list removed? That would maybe answer this question once and for all. If you provide this information you may also need to inform readers that there are a number of other Gurus who contest the authenticity of thse claims. However of course we also have Premie scholar of religion Ron Geaves' published list of Rawat's claimed hagiographic family tree to refer to also if need be. Anyone like to see that?PatW (talk) 10:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Armeisen, do you accept now that Rawat is a master in a line of gurus that stem from the Sikh tradition? If so can you accept that he has religious roots? Third question, would you agree that Sikhism is generally correctly categorised as a a religion? Forth - do you now understand that Rawat has undeniable religious roots? Fifth - how likely or sensible would it be that someone who's entire teachings stem from a religion has 'nothing to do with religion? Can you answer those questions please?PatW (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Pat, in spite of so many polite requests, you are still writing in those same strident, self righteous tones that tell us you believe you are the only honest, wise and clear-thinking editor around here. This style clearly suits the anti-Rawat websites in which it evolved, but it is in no way conducive to arriving at a mature consensus for this article. Rumiton (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I object to the insinuation that my writing style has evolved in anti-Rawat websites. I was a self-righteous honest, wise, clear-thinking writer since childhood.PatW (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So far, Pat W, all you have done is to say that Prem Rawat traced his lineage back to some Sikh person. But there is no notion of religion, in the sense of a set of beliefs or tenets. You stated that you practised knowledge for many years. Did you ever go to a Sikh temple as part of that practise? Were you requested to take on a set of Sikh beliefs? If you were, then you must have received a different knowledge from me. So I don't accept that any of your statements have any veracity. You state that you don't believe he has any links; a bit contradictory. So what are his teachings that you refer to? That God is within each human being? That peace lies within each human being? That having peace is essential to a human being. That human beings love joy, don't enjoy discomfort. I guess if you want to call that religion, then that is fine by me. Armeisen (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I can certainly agree with what you say Armeisen. I think the unedifying tussle somewhere above regarding how many of Prem Rawat's names and titles should appear in the lede show how wilfully obtuse single words can be, when applied to this subject. It gets worse with words like religion and religious. I made some enquiries a few months ago and found the following, not official information, but I believe a good description of the situation.


 * 1. Elan Vital is an organisation that facilitates people coming together to celebrate an inner experience. As each country has differing organisational laws, Elan Vital is set up differently in different countries.


 * 2. The Divine Light Mission was registered in 1971 by then student/follower/devotee of Prem Rawat's, Bob Mishler. It later changed its name to Elan Vital. The 501(c)(3) status of Elan Vital in the US is based on its acceptance in the US as a "church", which is defined something like "a coming together of 2 or more people to worship a higher power" (exact wording not found, but can be if needed.)


 * 3. Elan Vital is not a religion.


 * 4. There is no membership in Elan Vital. It is run mainly by a small number of volunteers.


 * I think this could be fruitfully covered on the Elan Vital page and linked to from this page. Rumiton (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ruminton. In this matter I am self-righteous. Sorry! I also humbly :-) believe that I am honest and reasonably clear-thinking and wise in some respects. I also invite you all to prove me wrong so I question the relative clear-thinking of some people's arguments here including that of Armeisen who, in case you hadn't noticed, has utterly failed to connect the dots as I believe most sensible people will agree. I kind of rest my case. Finally, despite all this bleating about incivility, we've been having this debate for years - it is described above as 'heated' and we're always being rude and then apologising and so on - I'd call that an acceptable equilibrium.  So getting back to the article, do you agree that it would may be helpful to inform readers that Prem Rawat claims to be part of the lineage that he does? Or is that now something you also want to hide because you've decided it makes him look too religious?PatW (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies if my questions have too much of a cross-examining tone everybody. Please understand that I myself will happily reply to all hard questions in full (You know I am naturally pompous and verbose - any excuse to waffle on). I simply do unto others as I would have them do unto me. Also remember I am trying to win arguments here - I want to get to the point and the traditional way to do that is to have a debate that is formed of clear questions and clear replies. Hence the stark questions. Big hugs all round? :-)PatW (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Armeisen writes: But there is no notion of religion, in the sense of a set of beliefs or tenets. 
 * What about the ashram rules? Weren't they tenets?


 * Did you ever go to a Sikh temple as part of that practise? Were you requested to take on a set of Sikh beliefs? If you were, then you must have received a different knowledge from me.
 * No, and I make no claims to be a scholar of religion but I am aware now that there a a number of great similarities in lots of respects with Radhasoami and all those traditions that derive from that part of India. I don't want to harp on about Sikhism because although people associate Sikhism with Radhasomai and Advait Mat there are some differences. Here's a list of some similarities between Prem Rawat and Radhasoami/Advait Mat/Sant Mat:
 * The singing of 'Arti' in front of an altar with guru's picture on
 * The belief in a line of 'Perfect Masters' or 'Satgurus' who are incarnations of God etc.
 * The singing of bhajans
 * Darshan (kissing of the feet etc)
 * Devotion to the Master
 * Satsang
 * Service (Seva)
 * Meditation (Assayanas) the 4 techniques which are historically the same as his predecessors and other Sant (Light) Gurus.
 * The DLM motto 'Work is Worship' Same as at Dayalbagh (Sikh city in India founded by Radhasoami guru also reported to have initiated Rawats father)
 * Here's some quotes from Ron Geaves' 2006 academic paper entitled 'From Totapuri to Maharaji (Prem Rawat)? Reflections on a Lineage (Parampura)'
 * <i>Maharaji has previously referred to this lineage as his own website as follows:
 * Shri Totapuri ji Maharaj (1780-1866)
 * Shri Anandpuri ji Maharaj (1782-1872)
 * Param Hans Dayal Shri Advaitanand ji (1840-1919)
 * Shri Swarupanand jo Maharaj (1884-1936)
 * Yogiraj Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Hans ji Maharaj (1900-1966)


 * There is no doubt that any scrutiny of the language of Swarupanand Ji, Shri Hans Ji Maharaj and the early discourses of his son Maharaji will demonstrate the usage of the (above) four metaphors (The experience of the divine was veiled in various images of light, sound,nectar and finally the Word or Name of God) and other terminology associated with the language of the mediaeval nirguna sants, particularly Nanak and Kabir.</i>(NB. Nanak and Kabir were both famous Sikh Gurus I think)
 * The rest of Geaves paper is devoted to how Rawat has made something new and brilliant out of all this. Something that evidently perplexes his contemporary scholars somewhat but which you are all very keen to emphasise. So if Elan Vital is not a religion, would you accept that it is an offshoot of a religion? Personally I think it plausibly deceptive to argue otherwise.PatW (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I also notice that Jossi is responsible for the Wiki entry on Advait Mat which he is careful to describe only as 'a cluster of movements in northern India which perceive themselves to be ::originating from Totapuri (d.1866)' How informative is that? Or can I be more blunt and say 'uninformative' for his not even using the obviously appropriate adjective 'religious movement'. It must be very exhausting having to tiptoe around this subject so carefully because of Prem Rawat's organisations sensitivities. I'm sure the followers of Advait Mat around the world would be quite proud to be described as a 'religion' or even 'the offshoot of a religion'.  Interestingly of course Prem Rawat himself was not even shy about proclaiming this connection either. Why are you?PatW (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No. A tenet is a principle, dogma or doctrine (OED.) Ashram rules were optional Indian renunciate lifestyle rules, which some accepted as personally useful to them and others did not go anywhere near. Probably more of the latter. Rumiton (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I moved your response. Please don't post stuff in the middle of my text. It's confusing. There was a doctrine or creed and it was sung morning and night in Rawats ashrams as he advocated in the rule book. Also Rawat strongly recommended that people wanted to serve him and who were available should surrender their llves to him in the Ashram. I heard him say that. Maybe you missed that bit. Lucky you. Don't rewrite other people's history though please. It's highly offensive. If this isn't a doctrine I'd like to know what is:

Arti (as sung to Prem Rawat or his picture on an altar whilst waving 'arti tray of burning ghee) <i> Jai Gurudev Maharaj Ji Your glory fills the world Protector of the weary and the weak You bring the death of attachment You bring the mind true detachment Save us from the ocean deep Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Creator, Preserver, Destroyer Bow their heads and pray to You All bow and pray to You Scriptures sing Your glory Heaveny hosts sing Your praises Your virtues are ever true Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Chanting, fasting, charity, austerity never bring you knowledge of the soul will never reveal your soul without the grace of satguru without the Knowledge of Satguru rites and rituals never reach the goal Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

In the river of bondage to maya All are swept out to sea All are sinking in the depths of the sea Guru's boat is the holy name Guru's ship is the holy word In seconds he has set us free Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

In the river of bondage to maya All are swept out to sea All are sinking in the depths of the sea Guru's boat is the holy name Guru's ship is the holy word In seconds he has set us free Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Anger, desire, attachments Rob us of eternal life Take away our heavenly life Satguru gives us true Knowledge Satguru is eternal Knowledge The sword that kills our problem life Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Religions harp their own glories Call to follow their own path Welcome me to follow their own way The essence of all was revealed The seed of all was revealed I walk on the true way today Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Nectar from Satguru's feet is Holy and it cleans us of our sins So sacred in cleaning us of sin When he speaks, darkness flies away When he speaks, darkness cannot stay Doubts removed, new life then begins Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Mine, Thine, Wealth, Health Give them to the lotus feet of love Give them to the lotus feet of the Lord Give yourself to Satguru Sacrifice yourself to Satguru Be united with the blissful Truth Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Bible, Gita, the Koran Sing the glory of Your Name They all sing the glory of Your Name Angels sing Your great glory Heavenly hosts sing Your praises They find no end to Your fame Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Desires have robbed me and left me Trapped in the darkness of the night Yes, they've trapped me in the darkness of the night Guru gives holy Name and Light Guru gives Holy Name and Sight Cross the ocean by His Love and Light Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Many past forms you have taken Now we have come in your control Again You have come to save the soul In this time of darkness To lead Your devotees from darkness You have come as Hansa the pure soul Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Come to the shelter of Guru's grace Come with your heart and your soul Bring Him your heart and your soul Cross the worldly ocean Cross it by your devotion And attain the supreme goal Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Jai Gurudev Maharaj Ji Your glory fills the world Protector of the weary and the weak You bring the death of attachment You bring the mind true detachment Save us from the ocean deep Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev </i>

PatW (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how much more of this I need to post to jog your memory and to prove a point. But in the Ashram we had to sing this to his picture every morning and night. And at festivals he sat there (wearing the costume of Lord Krishna) while it was sung to him by 1000's. NB. He didn't join as it was plainly addressed to him and he was facing us. Anybody now in ANY doubt WHATSOEVER that this was a religious offshoot with doctrines?? Come on let's have some answers.

<i>Meditation begins in the form of our master, Adoration begins at the feet of our lord,  Concentration begins in the words of our master,  Liberation begins in the grace of our lord. You are my mother and you are my father, you are my brother and you are my friend , you are riches, you are wisdom, You are my all, my lord to me. You are riches, You are wisdom, You are my all, my Lord to me. Guru Maharaj Ji, my life is within You, From You I was born and to You now I go, Forever I'm Yours, my longing is endless,  This heart of mine aches to be one with You,  Forever I'm Yours, my longing is endless,  This heart of mine aches to be one with You. Wherever I look, Your face is before me Your golden Love melts all my troubles away,  I give You my heart, for in You it will mellow, Maharaj Ji my Lord, my life is Your play , I give You my heart, for in You it will mellow , Maharaj Ji my Lord, my life is Your play Oh wondrous Lord, my Guru Mahraj Ji, Your grace is a river which flows on and on, You fill my heart with Your Love overflowing,  Let me come home find my rest at Your feet,  You fill my heart with Your Love overflowing,  Let me come home find my rest at Your feet Our Lord is the maker of all things created, He keeps them and brings them,  all home to his word, Our Lord is the superior power in person,  I bow down before such a wonderful Lord. </i><P>

(at which point everyone would fall flat on their faces - that 'well-know Indian Greeting' right Ruminton?) PatW (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Responsibility
Returning to this page after a 48 hour absence is an excellent reminder of all that is wrong with Wikipedia. The screeching from Jossi would be embarrassing enough if delivered by a spoilt eight year old, from a fifty year old man it is plain worrying, and from one of Wikipedia’s most active administrators it is an outright demonstration that there is one rule for the elect and another for the ‘non belongers’.

This article has been a POV sewer for years, the only thing that will rescue it is the rapid addition of a multiplicity of new references. Cleaning out POV phraseology is the work of moments, it just requires intelligent editing, but getting the references resolved is what is needed and that takes research effort, my edit is a major boost to that end.

It is untrue to say that what I was proposing was undiscussed, and it is absurd to work on the basis that because someone doesn’t respond over the course of a week when intentions have been clearly raised, that the discussion has not included the non respondents. It is even more absurd to propose a process where the existing failed structure of an article has to remain intact while there are endless arguments over every word. The structure of this article is wrong and multiple sections need rewriting as contiguous elements if there is to be any hope that a semblance of chronological integrity is to be achieved.

Momento – who has been throwing his dummy out of the pram ever since the Cade Metz article shone a light on this particular cess pit – suggests I should agree to not edit for a week. I have a different suggestion which is that the editors who oversaw the creation of an article so embarrassing to Wikipedia that it has to be wholly reworked, should be banned from this article and its talk page for one month – Jossi, Momento and Rumiton are entirely responsible and should get out of the way so that others can repair the damage. On that basis I’d be more than happy to agree to take a month’s sabbatical.

Finally for anyone who finds my contribution here distasteful, you may find it instructive to note why I am on Wikipedia at all. It was entirely down to Jossi including a link in the Rawat article to a site which contained defamatory material about me; I spent months of futile effort attempting to get the Wikiocracy to give me, a private citizen, the same protection as the anointed get under BLP – and in the end it was only down to my vocal participation on this talk page that persuaded a disinterested editor to do the decent thing. Having spent months going through the puerile promotional whitewash that passed for a biography of Rawat I was eventually persuaded I could do a better job than what was here for most of the last three years, and I’ve not yet changed my mind. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to propose such restrictions, use the appropriate methods, go ahead. Whatever your opinion of this article, of me, or Wikipedia, or of its processes, you can simply cannot walk in here and do whatever you want to do. You will have to follow process, you will have to discuss your edits. If people do not respond to your proposals, assume they have no traction. You will not edit-war. You will have to seek consensus. You will have to pursue dispute resolution. I am not going anywhere, Nik. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll support Jossi here. Whilst you, Nik, and your group attempt to deride the good work of Prem Rawat, then there will be others who will challenge you. You claim some kind of grand NPOV status, but that claim is nonsense. As Jossi says, consensus is the way to proceed. I'm not going away either. Armeisen (talk) 22:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This article obviously has many biased editors. However if Wikipedia banned all biased editors there's wouldn't be any editors at all. The key is that editors, whatever their biases, must edit in a neutral manner. One technique for ensuring that you are editing neutrally is to 'write for the "enemy"'. In other words, edit as if you were someone with an opposite viewpoint. Editors who can't leave their biases at the doorstep should not be encyclopedia editors. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Will, I think your observation above is important, and I hope it doesn't get lost in the general shrillness created by too many people trying to "win". If an article does not emerge that accommodates all sides and provides a mature overview we will be here forever. I am not going away either, but I planned my retirement differently. Rumiton (talk) 05:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources - L.A. Times and N.Y. Times
The clear consensus at WP:RS/N is that the L.A. Times and the N.Y. Times are definitively reliable and relevant sources regardless of context. In the 1970s and 1980s the subject received considerable attention from the mainstream media. These sources along with others are important representatives of contemporary jounalistic coverage of a prominent public person. WP:NPOV calls on us to include all significant viewpoints so we must include theirs. To that end, I've searched archives and found some 76 articles from the L.A. Times and 22 in the N.Y. Times that are relevant to this subject's biography. I'd be happy to send copies of these articles to other editors who request them by email, in accord with fair use exemptions of the copyright laws and good scholarly practice. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly you're not going to insert a sentence from each one, so how about giving us a synopsis of a theme or a year.Momento (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * These are reliable sources with notable points of view. We'll include them as need be. I've often said that the role of Wikipedia editors is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. I hope that's what we're all aiming for. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, though with some caveats. The reliability of newspapers is not high in this area. (I could cite academic sources that say so, quite explicitly.) Much is misreported, misrepresented, or portrayed in a manner likely to elicit maximum reader interest. An example from my recent experience in German Wikipedia: numerous German top-quality, national newspapers state, time and again, that Scientology does not have the status of a religious or ideological community in Germany, but is a purely commercial enterprise. (This is indeed the opinion of the German government.) However, the German courts have many times held otherwise, with most decisions either explicitly leaving the question open, or taking a clear stance in favour of according Scientology such status.
 * A briefing for German members of parliament, available online on the German parliament website and compiled by the parliament's Scientific Services division, reviews the situation in detail, lists court decisions going this way and that, and describes the situation as "contested" and "unresolved". Whereas newspapers often present the situation as a clear-cut case, citing one particular decision that went the other way.
 * Now, people deriving their knowledge from newspapers alone turn up on the German Scientology talk page at regular intervals. They demand that it be made clearer in the article that Scientology is a purely commercial organisation that has been denied recognition as a religious movement and that the article is not a fair representation of POVs. What to do? I would argue that in such a situation an encyclopedia has to give preference to the more reliable source. It is not just a question of verifiably summarising what various reputable sources have, on average, said. And if readers experience cognitive dissonance because the article does not reflect what they have read in the papers, then IMO that is a good thing, and not an NPOV failing. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 18:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

How delightfully well put. I seem to agree entirely.PatW (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And I entirely agree with PatW.Momento (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And I also. Rumiton (talk) 15:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a clear consensus, Will Be Back. A consensus is when everyone agrees. The context is important. Just because the newspaper has won Pulitzer Prizes (generally they are given to journalists, not newspapers) doesn't mean that everything they report is of substance. Take Rawat's house, for instance. A search should show what was paid for it. Another search should show that it was the registered address of DLM, if indeed it was. If the journalist used some other source, then that needs to be stated.

Then there is the question of relevance. Of what relevance is the price of a house or a piece of land? None. If the article is about Prem Rawat, then it should be about him, if he is notable enough to have an entry in Wikipedia. It's what he is doing that is important. Armeisen (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing your opinion. There are many valid viewpoints. The fact is that this property has been the subject of numerous contemporary news reports. These concern three broad topics: the price and general opulence of the property; the presence of Prem Rawat and his following in the Malibu community; and the helicopter permit. I think that the topic of the subject's tenure in Malibu can be developed in a responsible manner. It's just one aspect of many covered by local and national newspapers.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is interesting .If I am correct here you are saying that information about Prem Rawat's family home is one of three broad topics you would like to include in the article. Is there no mention of his work in the LA Times ? Balius (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what I meant. I wrote that those are three topic concerning the Prem Rawat living in Malibu that have been covered by the L.A. Times. My point is that there are many dimensions to his residence there. As for the overall coverage of the subject in that newspaper, there are other topics as well. If you like I'd be happy to send you the complete file. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, what exactly is the relevance of where Rawat lives? Why isn't the house he lived in as a child included. And the one he stayed in when he first visited England. I know the anti-Rawat crew believe that a guru should live in a cave but isn't living in a house so normal as to be unimportant?Momento (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Asceticism (or at least material modesty) is a honored ideal for a Hindu or Sant Mat guru. The fact that he completetly diverged from this ideal is very relevant for his notability. Andries (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Then perhaps we should point out that Prem Rawat has never practised or advocated renunciation, and that in this respect he diverges from traditional Hinduism? Rumiton (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The L.A. Times covers more that his residence, but his residence has been the topic of considerable coverage. If it's relevant to mention that he has a pilot's license then it's relevant to say he has a heliport in his front yard. If he's promoted asceticism among his followers then it's relevant to note his own living circumstances. If he's using the property as a headquarters for his organization then that's relevant too. If there's a reliable source that has written extensively about the subject childhood home paper then we should consider summarizing that material. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

How can you say that Ruminton? That is just a straight out plain as a pikestaff lie! You know as well as I that Rawat advocated renunciation to the hilt. What do you think his ashrams were? And I get reprimanded for calling this stuff lies?! Are you just trying to bait people here like me who gave their lives in ashrams? That is not at all funny.PatW (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

In 1978 Rawat joked to the 100(0)'s of ashram premies in Kissimmee Florida saying that "the only tie you have with your parents is the one they gave you for Christmas" - doesn't that imply he expect some renunciation? Like : No sex- Being a vegetatrian - no careers -no seeing your parents -and you are SO wrong to weasely insinuate that everyone did this because they wanted to. SO damn wrong. Rawat yelled and yelled at us about obedience and that was a major factor for many young earnest people blinded by their sincerity and devotion. Obedience meant obeying rules whether you liked them or not. Sure we just thought it would be best to do as he said. But I for one bitterly resent the things I was told I should give up - like that girl at Alexander Palace who wanted to know why Rawat had allowed his Instructors to go around passing on his authoritarian dictates (she was told to give up her place at Oxford) and was reprimanded by HIM for wanting a 'pissing contest' ! PatW (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely correct, Pat. At the end of 1976, with his birthday celebration in Atlantic City, NJ, Rawat dressed up in his  Krishna costume which signaled to his followers a resurgence of acknowledging his divinity as Lord of the Universe, Perfect Master.  I went to that Atlantic City program.  Rawat's strong demands for  surrender and devotion  to him were taught (often yelled and screamed) by himself in large events and also repeated by his own agents, Initiators/Instructors/Mahatmas all over the United States, UK, and Europe.  This period ushered in an era of renewed commitment and devotion to Rawat by his devotees and many people entered and reentered the ashram as a result.  Obedience to Maharaji was in the form of following his agya or his commands to premies. But, we don't have to argue about the blatant whitewashing going on in this talk page about this issue, all one has to do is point to Prem Rawat's own words, because Rawat said himself that he wrote the ashram manual.  He wasn’t shy about saying that, either.


 * The ashrams in the United States were more organized during the time period 1976 through 1982, than ever before in the history of DLM/EV. Ashram residents lived in what were considered "Divine Light Mission" ashrams, a life of renunciation that included poverty, chastity, and obedience.  What's more, this issue has been argued on these talk pages many times before and now the subject is being trotted out not by using subtle whitewashing, but baldfaced lies.  This revision of the history of Rawat’s life can be maddening because I know exactly what was going on during the late seventies and early 80s in this NRM.  I worked closely with Prem Rawat in 1979 and 1980 as one of his secretaries in the Design Department where a Boeing 707 was being reconfigured inside and out to becomehis his first executive jet.  The project was called DECA (Design and Engineering Corporation of America) in Miami Beach, and the vast majority of the hundreds of unpaid workers there were ashram residents who were transferred from their communities to Florida.  I spoke to Rawat and saw him several times per day at DECA.  One of the reasons that his wealth is such an issue is that that jet, which he had total control over, from design to use, was fitted with top of the line everything, from ebony laminated woodworking, custom designed seating, and a gold-plated toilet.  I was there for the design of the toilet, saw it being manufactured and saw it after it was installed on the B707.  After that I worked part-time at DLM headquarters, then located on Alton Rd., Miami Beach briefly in 1980, which had moved from Denver, CO to Miami Beach because Rawat moved his base of operations there during the jet project.  Rawat lived in Miami Beach during that time, had all of his luxury autos shipped to the DECA complex and even his favorite premie band had a recording studio on the DECA premises.  He also held his Initiator Development Programs on the premises in the satsang hall on site.


 * Btw, each and every person seeking to "receive Knowledge, known as “aspirants” were stringently vetted by Initiators/Instructors/Mahatmas prior to being selected to receive the techniques, from at elast 1975 through the mid-80s. This requirement applied to all aspirants, not just those who wanted to move into a DLM ashram. In the Knowledge session, this vow was required to be taken by everyone before being shown the meditation techniques.  One simply didn't get to into a Knowledge Session to receive Knowledge without the understanding of who Guru Maharaj Ji is, i.e., the Perfect Master, the Lord, etc.


 * Knowledge Vow


 * Oh my Guru Maharaji, I dedicate myself to your lotus feet.
 * I am weak and ignorant and am filled with the impurities of this world.
 * Oh Guru Maharaji, please take my mind and purge me of the impurities I possess.
 * Reveal to me the Knowledge of all knowledge.
 * Strengthen me, uplift me and reveal the kingdom of heaven within inside of me.
 * Bring me from hate to love, from darkness to light, death to immortality.
 * I will obey you implicitly and will never reveal this knowledge to anyone for any reason.
 * I will keep in contact with you through my devotional love, satsang,meditation and service.
 * Thank you my Lord for everything.

Sylviecyn (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I sat in on many Knowledge giving sessions where this vow was required from aspirants in the late 70's. For those who want to play down the sterner side of Rawat's demands please note the promise to "obey you implicitly" was required. Hardly an encouragement to take it or leave it!PatW (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel I am being shrieked at again. I think the only way I can approach a dialogue with you is to apply the "PatW factor." This will be a multiplier of about 0.2. Whatever you say I shall assume you meant only one fifth of it. Your "plain as a pikestaff lie" defeats my new system somewhat, as I don't know what a "plain as a pikestaff lie" is, but I shall translate it as "exaggeration." I was in the ashram for about 4 years, and generally it was a positive experience. Certainly no one "yelled at me" wooops, new system, "spoke persuadingly" to me to go there. I wanted to, it felt like the right thing to do. I never made a lifetime commitment, nor was asked to, nor would I have if I had been asked. Most of the people I knew were not in it, and would not have wanted to be. I don't believe they felt discriminated against. If there are sources who claim Prem Rawat applied pressure to some people to live that way, then the article can certainly refer to them. I was not at the Alexander Palace and neither were you. We have 2 witnesses who describe what happened very differently. I will keep an open mind about it. Rumiton (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is already covered with Rawat "left his more ascetic life behind and does not personally eschew material possessions. Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle".Momento (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[E/C] Local and national newspapers have covered many aspects of the subject. His residence has been a recurring issue. Many other topics are as well. Let's just summarize what's in the sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Over reliance on newspaper sources is not a good thing, in particular were there are abundant scholarly sources on the subject. If there is a specific aspect that was covered in a newspaper and not covered in scholarly sources, we need to ask ourselves why, and make an assessment in a per case basis about the suitability for inclusion of that material. If there is agreement about adding a source, it needs to be done within the context of the rest of the article's text, and with respect to undue weight. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Over-reliance on any source or type of source, including scholarly articles, is not a good thing. Wikipedia policy clearly supports representing a broad variety of different viewpoints and reliable sources.  Academic articles are not simply superior versions of newspaper and magazine articles; they have different focuses (foci?) and methods and cover different subjects.   And scholarly articles have one major disadvantage -- they are far less accessible to Wiki editors and the general public who might want to verify the sources of a Wikipedia article, or simply look them up for more information.   Msalt (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Msalt, without wishing to open a can of worms as to whether this site is a reliable site, whether it can be used as a convenience link or not etc., there seems to be a collection of related academic studies available here. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 12:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree Jossi. I'm becoming concerned that the push for using newspapers as sources is going to end in a "dumbing down" of the article. The house issue highlights this approach. Dr Melton, a religious scholar, says Rawat moved into a house in Malibu in 1974. The LA Times adds the cost and describes it as a "mansion" and a "palatial walled estate". Melton's approach of supply the facts is suitable for an encyclopedia, the LA Times adds some gossip that is suitable for a tabloid. This article used to rely on peer reviewed articles from religious scholars and sociologists to describe Rawat's life and work and still reached 60,000 bytes. Are we going to simply add more material from newspapers until we get to 100,000 bytes? Or, worse still, are peer reviewed articles from religious scholars and sociologists going to be removed to make way for material from newspapers?Momento (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know, Momento. There is no such a thing as a blanket agreement of types of sources, be these scholarly or from newspapers. When new sources are forthcoming editors will assess each one in the context of what is going to be used for, and work towards forming consensus in that regard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The consensus at WP:RSN appears to be that these two newspapers are reliable unless a specific case can be made for their unreliability. There's no need to assess them every time we use them unless we have some special information that calls their reliability into question. We had a situation above where I asked if the L.A. Times was reliable in a specific context and was unable to get an answer one way or the other. Rather than spending time arguing over the obvious let's just acknowlege that these are reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My point was more - why use the LA Times to say Rawat moved to Malibu in 1974 when Melton says it in a neutral, non-tabloid way. Same with Randi, why use a source that describes someone as "an overweight teenage guru"? If someone referred to Aretha Franklin as a "fat old singer" decent people would be outraged. Momento (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have asked for an opinion on the use of the L.A. Times and the N.Y. Times on WP:RSN and the overwhelming view there is that those are reliable sources, regardless of context, with a few exceptions (op-eds, etc). The L.A. Times appears to be reporting on an announcement by Prem Rawat. There's no legitimate reason to doubt the veracity of the reporting. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources, and their use is deprecated. I'm sure that for theological issues covered by scholarly source are better, when available. I don't think we should remove sources, but rather add more.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"The LA Times appears to be reporting on an announcement by Prem Rawat"? It doesn't say that at all, it quotes "Los Angeles information director John Berzner". As for adding more sources, we've been down that route before with predictable results. This article was once 100,000 bytes long. Momento (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The article starts, "The 16-year old Guru Maharaj Ji...has moved his home to the Malibu foothills, it was announced Tuesday." Who do you suppose made the announcement? Mother Theresa? It appears to me to to have been made by Prem Rawat's spokespersons. Regardless of who made the announcement, the report on it is published in a reliable source. I'm sure we'll be able to keep this article a reasonable length while still including all significant points of view. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks like it was made by a spokesperson. As we have additional information from a scholar about that house, we ought to use it and assess if there is additional info provided by the LAT that is suitable/encyclopedic. If the latter, and if there are competing viewpoints (scholar vs newspaper) we ought to note that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What's our definition of "encyclopedic"? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A source that is peer reviewed and written by an expert in the field would be a good start. Not written by someone who uses phrases like "juvenile judge".Momento (talk) 01:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Momento, you may not have much experience with other articles on Wikipedia, but I can assure you that the vast majority of the contents of this encyclopedia are not referenced from peer reviewed works written by experts in their field. I have no idea what the "juvenile judge" reference concerns. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Will, you may not have much experience with BLP policy but it says - "Be very firm about the use of high quality reference". And WP:VER says "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available".Momento (talk) 01:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Momento, your refusal to consider the two leading newspapers in the U.S. to be reliable sources is unhelpful. Deleting material sourced from the L.A Times calling it "extremely poorly sourced" gives appearance of acting without regard to normal standards in order to push a POV. No one responding at WP:RSN thinks that it is an in adequate source, and no one here agrees with you. You are acting against consensus and that is disruptive. Please get with the program and stop deleting properly sourced information. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have never said they weren't reliable sources, Will Beback. I have said that in the case of Rawat moving to Malibu, Melton is a more reliable source and the LA Times material was "gossip". As for removing properly sourced material, being properly sourced doesn't automatically include access to the article, it must also be relevant, unbiased, not contain weasel phrases, not be undue weight, imply guilt be association etc. Can I put this in as context for the $400,000 house gossip, it is properly sourced to James V. Downton, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the College of Arts and Sciences of the University of Colorado at Boulder - "Many of the luxuries surrounding America's new gurus are gifts from their followers. Guru Maharaj Ji is not alone among the new gurus who are surrounded by material comforts. A casual glance at the lifestyles of other gurus in America does not turn up any signs of poverty. This raises an obvious question: Why is it gurus insist on their followers becoming detached from the material world, while they seem to be completely immersed in it? Detachment means losing dependence to students of eastern thought. A guru may be surrounded with material luxuries, they believe, and not depend on them in the least for his peace and happiness. Trungpa, Rinpoche, a Tibetan Buddhist teacher, has expressed this idea: "Then, of course, the next step is giving away one's possessions. But this is not necessarily connected to austerity. It does not mean that you should not own anything at all or that you should give away what you have immediately. You could have a great wealth and many possessions and you could even enjoy them and like having them and probably you have a personal interest in them-like a child's toy, or adult's toy for that matter. It isn't a question of not seeing the value of possessions, the point is that it should be equally easy to give them away." The western mind tends to see this as a rationalization of self-indulgent behavior. Yet, while many people feel gurus have accumulated more than their share of wealth, their followers believe they are getting no more than what they deserve. From the premie point of view, for instance, Guru Maharaj Ji's opulent lifestyle seems in harmony with their view of him as the Lord. They want him to live like the king that they feel he is. Idealizing him as they do, they are more than happy to supply him with luxuries. From this perspective, Guru Maharaj Ji's opulence can be understood as a natural outgrowth of his followers' need to idealize him and to set him at a sufficiently great distance so that beliefs in his extraordinary powers are preserved. In short, premies have a stake in maintaining his luxurious way of living. The fact is that followers, not leaders, are the chief obstacles to equality, for followers need to elevate the leader so they have an ideal to strive toward. This point of view may seem strange, yet, if we look at other spiritual movements across the country, we find other followers elevating their gurus to a high spiritual status and surrounding them with material goods. While we can partially explain Guru Maharaj Ji's lifestyle in terms of collective dynamics, another point of view would question why he has accepted the luxuries premies have gladly given him. Several explanations could be offered: that he is following tradition; that he recognizes his followers' need to elevate him to a point where he becomes the ideal to emulate; that he sees no conflict between his lifestyle and his spiritual mission; and that he is not attached to the comforts surrounding him. Of course, there is also the possibility that he is ambitious and materialistic, as so many people believe. It is difficult to understand the motives behind Guru Maharaj Ji's lifestyle, just as it is impossible to know whether he is, as premies believe, an authentic saint. I have thought about this issue a great deal and have come to the conclusion that there is no way of knowing, by objective measures, whether the guru is authentic or not. That can only be determined subjectively, for, as one premie told me, "You can only see Guru Maharaj Ji with your heart." Instead of considering the guru's motives and authenticity, perhaps it would be more constructive to ask whether his followers have benefited from their relationship to him and what impact his efforts are having on our society" Momento (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Momento, you repeatedly said that the material was poorly sourced: "...it is poorly sourced contentious material." and "Extremely poorly sourced compared to an article by a sociologist or religious scholar." However if you've now come to realize that the L.A. Times is a relaible source, and you won't remove material referencing it on account of it being "poorly sourced" then this problem is resolved.
 * Regarding the "opulence" factor, you seem to be saying that it is appropriate and normal for followers to maintain their guru in a lavish lifestyle. If it is normal and appropriate then why are you censoring any reference to the details of that lifestyle. If it's a good thing for followers to provide luxury then they should be proud of the guru's home, jet, cars, and other amenities. Osho's followers were proud to have provided their teacher with dozens of Rolls Royces. There's no need to hide this important aspect of the guru-follower relationship. And it certainly isn't "gossip" to report an announcement from the subject's spokespersons. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As stated above and in the link you provided, I removed it because "it has no relevance, it is undue weight, it is poorly sourced contentious material". Did the guru's spokespersons say the house was worth $400,000? I don't think so. In fact, none of the spokespersons even said Rawat bought it. And yes, it is so appropriate, normal and traditional for followers to maintain their guru and with over a million followers, many in the west, it  should come as no surprise that Rawat would live a life of luxury and good luck to him. But this was already covered in this article that at the age of 16 Rawat was already  "financially independent as a result of contributions from his Western devotees". To then additionally insert that he lived in an expensive house and to describe that expensive house as "a walled estate" and "palatial"  is irrelevant and undue weight and gossip. But you're missing the point. Do you think it's necessary, relevant or encyclopedic to add "1974 he bought a $400,000" into an article about a successful racing car driver, brain surgeon or playwrite.Momento (talk) 23:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the L.A. Times is not a reliable source for local real estate transactions? If so you're alone in that belief. Property transactions are recorded in public records. There's no reason whatsoever to assert that this material is "poorly sourced". ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not and have never said that the LA Times is not a reliable source, I've always known that. What I said was, the material was "poorly sourced" or sourced "in a way or at a level that is considered inadequate". That is, given that the house purchase was already covered by Melton, you chose "poorly" to include the less reliable contentious and gossipy LA Times version of events. Did the guru's spokespersons say the house was worth $400,000? I don't think so. In fact, none of the spokespersons even said Rawat bought it. Melton says it was bought by followers. In addition, as stated above and in the link you provided, I also removed it because "it has no relevance, it is undue weight".Momento (talk) 23:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your logic. You admit that the L.A. Times is a reliable source. The assertions in the material I posted are all taken directly from that newspaper with no interpretation or synthesis. The assertsions are not disputed by any other sources. How can the material have been "poorly sourced" if the source is reliable? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the sources disagree inasmuch as the LA Times says, in the headline (and only in the headline), the sixteen-year-old Rawat bought the house himself, while Melton says it was his followers. While I can't speak to what the actual facts in the case are, I submit that this is precisely the sort of thing that newspapers sometimes muddle. If I have followed things correctly, the title of the article is "Maharaj Ji Buys $400,000 Home Base in Malibu Area", while the actual body of the article says "The 16-year-old Guru Maharaj Ji ... has moved his home to the Malibu foothills, it was announced Tuesday. Land and buildings purchased there ..." The latter sounds compatible with Melton's version. It sounds like the land and buildings were purchased by people not explicitly mentioned. So to me, a plausible explanation is that the editor looked for a short, snappy headline -- "Maharaj Ji buys" would, for a newspaper, be an acceptable shorthand for "Maharaj Ji's Divine Light Mission buys" or "Maharaj Ji's followers buy him", which, while more precise, would not have fitted the same space in the same font size. And in this way the nicer details of the matter sometimes get lost in headlinese. A scholar has no need to make short headlines that grab the eye's attention. My instinct is to go with Melton here. Of course, a third source would be welcome. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 01:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is also a significant difference between buying a $400,000 home for a single person, and buying a $400,000 headquarters for what at the time was presumably quite a large organisation, with accommodation for Rawat included in this. Again, this is a nice detail that the LA Times saw no need to reflect in its headline; as an attention grabber, it works better if the first impression is that this outrageously expensive property serves merely as a personal residence. The body of the article corrects the matter, but by that time, the emotional impact on the reader -- with potential shades of envy, indignation, etc. -- has already been actualised. It's newspaper psychology. Again, this is something that scholars eschew in their work, and that an encyclopedia can likewise well do without. Melton's is a sober account; this, on the other hand, uses some of the same newspaper psychology. Can you see what I mean, Will? -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 01:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC
 * I certainly agree that healines are the least reliable part of a newspaper article. If I understand correctly, they've often been written by someone other than the journalist. Regaridng he ownership, see below for other LAT reports. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Third source (weak) as to who bought the house: "By 1974, Prem Rawat was living in a luxury property, at Malibu Beach, California, this mansion was apparently in the ownership of DLM Inc. although following the financial restructuring of 1975/6 it came to be owned by SEVA Corporation of America." Fourth source, also weak (this is the one Momento refers to, I believe): "In 1974, the Divine Light Mission purchased the four-acre $500,000 Anacapa View estate as the residence for its youthful leader, Guru Maharaj Ji, his wife and their two small children." (Note that he did not have two children in 1974, at age 16; another example of newspaper inaccuracy).  --  Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 02:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The LA Times may generally be a reliable source but that doesn't mean everything in the LAT is true. The 1974 LAT article says Rawat bought the house for $400,000. A 1979 LAT article says the DLM bought the house for $500,000. Obviously one is untrue and possibly both. You say "The assertions in the material I posted are all taken directly from that newspaper with no interpretation or synthesis"is not true. I can write this from the same article - "Guru Maharaj Ji moved into a secluded house in Malibu with his new bride following security concerns. The guru who has made a considerable impact among American youth since first visiting LA in 1971 claims 50,000 followers in the US and 3,000 in LA County alone. Some people have criticized Maharaj Ji for luxurious living but Berzner says that Maharaj Ji has left behind the traditional image of spiritual sages to be more relevant to a technological age and his spiritual insights should not be disregarded because of his lifestyle". Two completely different synthesis' or interpretations of the same source. And both would fall foul of WP:BLP because they are a "conjectural interpretations of a source". BLP policy says - "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source".Momento (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * On Apr 10, 1976 the L.A. Times reported on the financial situation of the subject and the DLM. At that time someone named Joe Anctil said that the house belonged to the mission and was worth $554,000. He also said the Denver house was worth $86,000, and that Prem Rawat personally owned a Rolls Royce, a two Mercedes Benz, and some motorcycles, while the mission owned a $22,800 Jensen. The annual income of the DLM was said to be #3.78 million and there are further details about how that was raised and spent. Also of interest is the statement that the DLM does not consider itself a religion except for tax purposes. On Mar 25, 1982 the Times has Linda Gross saying that the house belongs to Seva Coprt. of Nevada, doing business as Anacapa View Estates.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Joe Anctil used to be the public relations person for Divine Light Mission, so if he's quoted in any articles, Anctil was speaking to the press in an official capacity as DLM's spokesperson, although to tell you the truth I don't remember his exact title at the moment. Anctil was the "go to" person at DLM for the press.  Hope this helps.  Sylviecyn (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, for clarification, during the time period 70s through 1983 when DLM became Elan Vital, DLM in the U.S. was considered Divine Light Mission International, often called "IHQ," or "International Headquarters." This applied to the Denver, CO, location/offices, then later the Miami Beach location/offices when it was moved to Florida.  IHQ was considered the flagship for all other DLM organizations worldwide, although I don't know anything about Elan Vital's structure in that regard after the name change. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * All of which contradicts the LA Times article.Momento (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no contradiction. The difference between ownership being held by Rawat or by some organization under his control isn't significant. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You really are grasping at straws. Wikipedia doesn't care what you think, if sources contradict each other it is unacceptable for you to chose which ever source suits you.Momento (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not picking the sources that suit me, I'm picking the reliable sources we have that cover this issue. As it happens, there's not significant dispute here between sources. Both the L.A. Times and Melton have reported that the house was bought by DLM. If they disagreed then the right solution would be to report the disagreement. As for the matter of the purchase price, we can give the later figure or both. Here's the text I propose: Moved down to new section
 * I think every assertion in it is reliably sourced and relevant. How can we improve it? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There's nothing conjectural about summarizing one set of points versus another. If you think that your statement contains important points I left out then let's merge the two. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, summarizing one set of points versus another, is the definition of a "conjectural" interpretation, which is to - "form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information". You claimed you summarized the source, in fact, you summarized 10% of the source. The most you can ever do with the LA Times is read every single article they've ever written about Rawat and make one summary of what the LAT said. Picking out one or two articles that prove your POV or, even worse, picking out a few sentences from some articles is "forming an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information". This is why we have relied on what scholars say. The LAT can't even get the ownership, price and occupants of a house correct. As for your idea of adding my "conjectural interpretation" to your  "conjectural interpretation", I think you've missed the point, there shouldn't be any in Wikipedia.Momento (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are in the wrong when you say accuse me of trying to "prove" me "POV". I don't think I've been trying to prove any POV, as I've only made a few edits to this article. If you'd like to investigate editors trying to advance POVs then I'd suggest that there are better places to start. As for the reporting, there's no contradictions. It isn't a contradiction to report in 1971 that Rawat is in London and in 1982 that he is in Malibu. Things change. The house may have been moved between businesses, or the Seva may be a subsidiary of DLM/EV. Your attempts to discard an entire reliable source is not helpful. If you insist on deleting material sourced from respectablepapers as being "poorly sourced", even after the uinput from WP:RSN, then other steps in dispute resolution should be taken. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Is a contradiction to say the same house was bought on the same day for $400,000 and $500,000 or that it was bought by Rawat and by DLM and by followers?Momento (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say the later reporting is probably more accurate. The ''L.A. Times' articles never say that Prem Rawat bought the house, though one headline does. A subsequent interview with a DLM spokesman makes it clear that the DLM bought the house and paid the mortgage. I don't see any dispute over that, nor about the other info you deleted, such as the date of purchase. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You'd say " later reporting is probably more accurate". Are you saying the material you sourced from the reliable LA Times was wrong? Perhaps now you can see why peer reviewed scholastic sources are preferable.Momento (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have a more reliable source for the purchase price then we can use that. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * All the guidance we need on this is available at WP:SOURCES. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That policy tells us that articles should use "sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and includes "mainstream newspapers" among the "most reliable sources". It's a no-brainer that the L.A. Times and New York Times qualify. If Momento keeps insisting that they are not, and keeps deleting material from them as being "poorly sourced", then he is acting disruptively. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (E/C) The answer to that question (as well as the answer to the question of "what is suitable"), depends on context, overall length of article, and other factors. I would argue that discussion will be needed for specific cases, when these two aspects are not necessarily obvious. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

With regard to my discussion with Rumiton and VivK above. I have posted a response from a current follower of Prem Rawat (who was at the Alexander Palace meeting referred to above) called Tim Hain here: Letter from Tim Hain in response to VivK (and Ruminton) I thought it best to put it on my Talk Page rather than in here.PatW (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 14:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 03:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I accept all of the versions of whatever happened as sincere personal recollections. For a time in my job in the military I did accident investigations and came upon this stuff almost daily, people astonished and outraged that their sincere description of something they witnessed was being contradicted by a colleague. It is just the way memory works, and it is why we need neutral sources to get things in perspective. There probably are none for this and many other occurrences, so we are going to need a lot of applied effort to push this article into neutral territory. If some editors continue to try to "win" by making emotional ambit claims and vilifying the opposition their efforts are not going to be helpful. Rumiton (talk) 15:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Allegations
Why is there no mention in this article about these allegations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.114.226.172 (talk) 11:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No allegations of abuse have ever been made about the subject of this article. Beware of guilt by association. Rumiton (talk) 11:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The accused Indian gent was a prominent and active Mahatma (Great Soul) of Prem Rawat, empowered by him to impart Rawat's knowledge all over the world. This mahatma abused Rawat's trust and allegedly sexually abused some kids at some sort of school for followers children. There is no mention of it here because as Ruminton says Rawat himself was not found responsible or guilty in any way. Rawat has however received criticism from ex-premies and the abused children themselves for the way he dealt with the matter. Ruminton warns that you should be wary that your questioning the matter here is paramount to suggesting Rawat himself is guilty. I beg to disagree.PatW (talk) 13:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * , has this incident been written about anywhere in WP:RS/WP:V sources? Cirt (talk) 15:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand there were some newspaper (for clarity: might be rather tabloid) stories about this (for clarity: about a presumed *follower* of Prem Rawat, and as Pat said, *not* implicating the subject of the Prem Rawat article). But I agree to both Rumiton and Pat, this has no place in the article on Prem Rawat. We're not reporting on Roman Catholic sex abuse cases in the article on Jesus Christ either, and these scandals were far more notable and extended than the news paper reporting on the allegedly offending follower of Rawat. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There are no newspaper stories about this. This section needs to be refactored per WP:BLP, or at least the section tile changed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * To be clear..I am not sure a) whether there are legitimate sources b) whether criticisms about the way Rawat handled  the matter should be included in a 'criticism' section.  I am too uninformed to argue about this- so I won't.PatW (talk) 16:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hope my clarifications inserted above helped. If I'm still wrong I'm open to further correction. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well if there was no coverage of this incident in WP:RS/WP:V sources, then this discussion is a moot point. Cirt (talk) 17:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Francis, I think your observation was entirely to the point and I thank you for it. Rumiton (talk) 05:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have asked WillBeback top block user 147.114.226.172 [] who I believe is a sockpuppets related to 147.114.226.173[],147.114.226.174[] and 147.114.226.175[], who have all edited on Rawat or related articles and been blocked numerous times for vandalism.Momento (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Progress
I think the ban on editing has produced good results. I'd like to propose that we extend it for another week BUT in all fairness we should revert NikWright2's massive edit.Momento (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the protection has been helpful and that it should stay in place while outstanidng issues are resolved. Of course it's protected on the wrong version - it always is. Regarding outstanding issues, do you, Momento, have any furher objection to editors adding the subject's other names or do we still need to discuss that further? If those are added after protection is lifted will you revert them again? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * NikWright2's version mentions aspects that I was unaware of and in some ways it is an improvement over the old version with its over reliance on Downton and under reliance on e.g. Derks/Van der Lans, and Foss/Larkin. It also treats the question of Rawat's leadership better. Andries (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Would it be helpful to create a draft page in order to merge the best parts of both versions? That could be a productive way of making progress while the page is protected. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree with Momento. I find the present version by Nik more unsatisfactory than the version it replaced: the time line is difficult to follow; the alleged hammer attack incident is out of place; so is the duplicated description of the foot kissing by his family; quotes from people such as the Chicago 7 belong in the Reception section, if considered notable, rather than the main part of the article. That is not to say that parts of Nik's version could not be integrated. I think that creating a draft page might prove useful. BRD is very well; we have had B, now let us move to R, and then to D. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We've been through the "R" already. Time for discussion. I haven't compared the versions and don't have any opinion about them myself. But it's logical to use the best parts of both drafts, combining them into a cohesive whole. I agree that quotes about the subject may be best in the "reception" section, unless we prefer to put them into chronological order (which I tend to prefer when practical). Since the lead should simply summarize the key points of the article, there's not need to put quotes there. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's not get distracted here. My proposal is to revert Nik Wright2's undiscussed insertion of 10,000 bytes of material and protect that article why these discussion continue.Momento (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's start the discussion first. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There are many problems with Nik's edit, (besides the fact that it was a massive edit with little or not discussion. Some material may be useful, such as new sources that have not been used that are of same or better quality of other sources used, but that's all. I will take sometime tonight to de-construct that edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Protected for one week.
I have protected this article for one week in the face of the simmering and apparently increasing edit warring going on here. I strongly suggest that you work out the content issues on this talk page, civilly. Nandesuka (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Maybe now editors can take a well deserved break from this article and continue contributing elsewhere. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, no thanks. All it takes is that one person makes a substantial revision for the article to be locked? Janice Rowe (talk)
 * If you disagree with the protection, you can always make a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This material should be removed  ("An event in August 1973 threatened to destroy the Rawat movement’s claim to be concerned with ‘peace’. Following an incident in which the young Rawat had a shaving foam ‘pie thrown in his face, the pie thrower, radical journalist Pat Halley was viciously attacked with a hammer by devotees of Guru Maharaj Ji.[30]") for the following reasons.
 * The only source provided is the magazine that employed Pat Halley, who threw the pie.
 * The source does not say "An event in August 1973 threatened to destroy the Rawat movement’s claim to be concerned with ‘peace’". It is Nik Wright2's unsourced OR.
 * It goes against BLP Policy - "Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability".Thanks Momento (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The incident was reported by the Associated Press. They were careful enough to say that Haley told police that he was beaten by followers, but the AP doesn't make that assertion themselves. It also says that there were no arrests. When the protection is lifted we should make that distinction. I assume that the AP is a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * UPI reports that Prem Rawat himself gave the pie-thrower a "forgiveness blessing". ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And, for what it's worth, I think that this sentence:
 * An event in August 1973 threatened to destroy the Rawat movement’s claim to be concerned with ‘peace’.
 * Is unsupported by sources and shouldn't be in the text. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This happens when an editor bypasses consensus and discussions, makes a massive edit, enters into an edit war, and the page gets protected because of that. The page should not have been protected. If this is not disruption, Will, what is? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that making massive changes without discussion is disruptive. Do you agree that removing  sourced, NPOV material is also disruptive?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nik did propose his alternative version and it was discussed in approving terms by Francis. Andries (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:BRD. If an editor makes a bold edit which is subsequently reverted, then does not revert again and discuss and seeks consensus without further revers, that is the preferred way, as you well know. Of course, if the material is a possible BLP violation, we apply the do no harm principle, and leave the material out while discussing and seeking consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD is an essay, not a policy. It appears that the claim of "possible BLP" violations have been extended to the breaking point in this article. Removing the subject's childhood name, despite ample sources and consensus, and without any legitimate claim to a BLP violation, is an example of policy abuse. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As I have told you before Will BeBack, I removed the phrase "less frequently Balyogeshwar". Which was unsourced. I'm sure in time someone will correct the lede to say "and Balyogeshwar in India" because that's were the source comes from.Momento (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Come on, Will. I start doubting your ability to remain impartial here. How can you compare a silly editwar about a name, with the behavior by NikWright? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * At least editors were engaged in discussing the names issue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And while BRD is not policy, WP:CONSENSUS is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There are too many silly edit wars going on here, including those the violate consensus. I'm not defending NikWright's behavior. I hope you're not defending Momento's. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Am I, Will? I have asked Momento to engage in discussions, and alerted him in his talk page; I have alerted other edit-warring editors here as well; I have asked people to pursue mediation, but there are no takers. Why do you think is that? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, Jossi, I would welcome mediation or other DR on any of these issues at any time. I'm unfamiliar with the process for initiating it, but welcome specific suggestions from you or any other experienced editor. So I'm certainly a "taker", but I'm not the one edit-warring.  Msalt (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:MEDIATION is a voluntary, non-binding process to assist editors with disputes. To request mediation you simply start the process here: WP:RFM. Note that mediation requires good faith and willingness from involved parties, see Requests for mediation/Common reasons for rejection ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It may not seem like it to you, Jossi, but I think that to many, including myself, there IS an impression that you are defending Momento, for a couple of reasons. First, on this Talk page you are very quick to caution, chastise or disagree with others, but rarely seem to do so with Momento, even in the fact of very aggressive and unilateral behavior.  Second, in the discussion over the Administrator's Noticeboard complaint, on several occasions you explicitly defended Momento, , ,  argued against sanctions on M.   or rebutted the criticisms of M. , , .  If you made any comments in that discussion that did not resist the criticism or sanctioning of Momento, I was unable to find them.  When you have criticized Momento, like on M's talk page as you note, it has been very effective.  I truly think that a few more words from you to Momento now and again would do wonders to calm this page -- more than any article protection could. Msalt (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Since you are so critical of me Msalt, perhaps we should revisit the first time you reverted me for deleting what you call "NPOV, sourced material". It began on Feb 15th when I added a Fact to an uncited comment by Ellen Barker []. I waited a further two days for the comment to be cited and when no cite was added I deleted it [] according to Wiki VER - "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed". Within an hour you reverted my delete []. Can you explain your actions. Because I'm getting bored explaining mine.Momento (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * To quote Jossi, not interested, Momento. (I explained this particular edit in detail in the summary and on the Talk page 10 days ago.  You must be the only person here who wants me to talk MORE.  I feel like the long-winded uncle at a party, here.)
 * I don't mean to be critical of you at all, but of your recent editing style (as I am of PatW's arguing style, but not him.) Have you noticed that you are in the thick of nearly every edit war on this article?  Common sense should tell you there's a message in there.  I have a personal rule for myself -- if I meet three assholes in one day, I assume that I am the one being the asshole. If you're getting tired of explaining your actions, perhaps you should act less.  No other editor makes nearly as many edits to this article as you do. Msalt (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, if the WP rules are so clear and not open to interpretation as you claim then I can only conclude that you think you are the only one here who's grasped their true meaning, cos no one has agreed with you so far. You seem to be the self-proclaimed Lawman here. I have no idea what 'mediation' really means but if it meant some other higher 'authority' people from Wikipedia sort of took over and let us plebs know what what the rules actually were I'd be delighted to accept their wisdom. Frankly I don't think you have many people who trust you and that's the problem. The trouble is even when unbiased people DO actually arrive you don't like their understanding of the rules and start accusing them of 'taking sides' with the dreaded critics, or of simply not knowing the meaning of WP guidelines as well as you. Don't you get it that you have demonstrated that you a) put your understanding way above others (isn't that arrogance?) and b) you are unwilling to move in the direction of consensus and are willing to rule the roost despite mistrust in your authority. Can I ask you a question Jossi? Imagine you were left to finish this article on your own or maybe with help from Momento (with your combined great understanding of the WP rules and with no contest) do you think it would be an unbiased article when you'd finished? Would you care to answer that straight please, without dodging the question?PatW (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not interested, PatW. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I'm sorry if my question was too blunt. I understand that you will only enjoin polite discussion. I will try to keep it that way. Can I respectfully push you for an answer? Do you think you would make a better job of this article if you were left alone? If you simply want more neutral editors to come here and help you uphold and defend WP rules/guidelines would you please invite same to come here. It's slightly exasperating that when other editors do take an interest in this article you quickly disagree with their take on policy. It leaves us less WP savvy mimor editors quite confused. Can you see that? Where are the Wikki-wise people to back you up on all this? We are quite ready to learn.PatW (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Jossi dear, looks as though you view making a response to a request for dialog from a self-confessed ex-premie who claims to be a member of a "hurt-group" as tantamount to fraternising with the enemy. You are very wise not to respond. Better fade away gently than go out with big stinking bang. (Sorry someone found the use of the word 'smelly' abusive in my earler comment that got deleted. But I meant it, and have amplified the point by using the word 'stinking' - probably more apposite in the circumstances. The more jossi wriggles the bigger the stink gets. He is, after all, Prem Rawat's press officer.Matt Stan (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Rationale for unprotecting
I wouldn't keep the article protected longer than necessary. Here's a reason: on this talk page we've been working hard on the content of the Prem Rawat article. There has also been some talk quite far from actually working on an improvement of the article text. Since the protection occurred, the balance is certainly shifting much more in the direction of "remotely (un)related talk" (PatW and others, I hope you can take a hint). Also for myself, I feel less incentive to work on article content under the current conditions: I've said I'm somewhat bored by the article's subject, and that writing a good article is enough incentive for me - discussing without being able to implement agreed improvement, or without being able to try out rewordings has just a little too little incentive for me now. So, I'd like unprotection could be considered on such grounds.

With that rationale I don't want in any way to cast a doubt on the protecting admin's decision. It was the right thing to do. And probably also, unprotecting without being sure that Nik (and Janice, etc) won't repeat the trick would not be a good idea either. Just offering my thoughts. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to take your hint Francis but I humbly predict that eventually you'll see that what you now consider "remotely (un)related talk" is in fact extremely germane to this article. Please look briefly at my Talk discussion page near the bottom 'Warning on soapbox, arguing, and personal attacks' where I explain my behaviour to Jossi and Willbeback (who is also critical of my approach)PatW (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

1RR probation
In order to promote more careful and considerate editing of this article, I've posted a proposal, suggested by Jossi, to change the limit on reverts to this article from three per day to one per week for one month. WP:AN. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile to consider something like this, but only when the Nik version is reverted in its entirety. A compromise of three per week might be better. Armeisen (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If, after seeking consenus, we revert to a differnt version then that's good and ordinary. It'll be up to a consensus of editors. Single edits like Nik's probably wouldn't qualify. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 12:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Ameisen is saying that no progress can be made, like the 1RR idea, until Nik's version is reverted.Momento (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * With which I vehemently agree. Rumiton (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Two long time editor/administrators of high standing, who have different viewpoints on this page, have suggested 1RR probation for the good of the article. I find it very disturbing that Armeisen, Momento, and Rumiton -- all acknowledged followers of Rawat -- seem to be making their agreement conditional on getting their way over reverting Nik's edit, rather than seeking consensus.
 * I say that as someone also upset with Nik's edit; I expect it to be either reverted or substantially altered (by consensus) fairly quickly.  This isn't about the merits of the edit; it's about "my way or we keep edit-warring", which is kind of the gist of the problem here.  Can you three reconsider your statements and think about agreeing to join consensus, whereever it leads us? Msalt (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Regrettably, an 1RR regimen will never work and it would ensure that NikWright2's version will remain. Because after I revert back to the version before NikWright2's, an anti-Rawat editor will revert it back. Editors Wowest, John Brauns, Andries, NikWright2 and SylvieCyn are regular posters on the anti-Rawat forum. And add the anon posters and I calculate the odds of NikWright2's version being reverted at about 3 to 1 against. And let's no forget the anti-Momento editors. I think before we hang our hopes on consensus, we should try following Wiki policy. If we did that NikWright2's edit would be reverted and edits would not be decided by a vote but by the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia.Momento (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's be clear then -- you are rejecting a search for consensus and the Jossi/Will BeBack 1RR proposal for this page, in favor of what you consider to be clear Wikipedia policy. Right?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msalt (talk • contribs) 06:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course I'm not rejecting the search for consensus but this 1RR proposal is the opposite of consensus. Consensus means everyone has a share in the outcome but the 1RR system is about majority rule. According to you there are three pro-Rawat editors ( Armeisen, Momento, and Rumiton). And since John Brauns, Andries, NikWright2 and SylvieCyn all post on the anti-Rawat forum, let's count them as anti-Rawat. So that means that an anti-Rawat group has 4 votes and a pro group has 3 votes. How can you achieve a general agreement when a losing vote is 42%? We're miles better off enforcing Wikipedia rules.Momento (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please stop referring to myself and others as "the anti-Rawat group" Momento. It's not helpful  We are not a group working together operating with an agenda as you imply and as Jossi has stated in the past. The extent of ex-premies being a "group" is that people discuss their involvement with Prem Rawat on a discussion forum and there's nothing nefarious about it.  Not that it's anyone's business.


 * Additionally, please note that none of the editors you named above who post on the Prem Rawat Talk Forum has ever tried to conceal it. Quite the contrary.   It's a public forum, completely transparent, and all the people you named above do post there using their real names, myself included.  Being critical of Prem Rawat doesn't render someone as unable to think rationally and logically about issues presented here.  In fact the only reason I've made posts here recently has only been to attempt to clear up incorrect information that some people have been trying to peddle here as fact.  That's it.  I'd also like to mention that Andries has not been a regular poster on the Prem Rawat Talk Forum for a very long time.  I even checked the stat page there to be sure, and Andries has only made seven brief posts on that forum in seven months.  I'd hardly call that being a "regular, not that that is anyone's business.  Thanks!  Sylviecyn (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think Momento understands the proposal. All Wikipedia rules would still be in force. The only change is that just one revert per day would be allowed instead of three. It doesn't change the mix of editors and viewpoints, and I don't see how it would do anything beyond slowing the revert wars that have plagued this article.  18:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback (talk • contribs)


 * Momento, I don't think you understand the nature of consensus. It has nothing to do with voting between factions, nor does it require that every single person agree.  It starts with finding common ground in facts and policies, and builds from there.  WP:Consensus is well worth reading.  One key part says
 * "When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite reasoning, cooperation, and if necessary, negotiation on talk pages, in an attempt to develop and maintain a neutral point of view which consensus can agree upon." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msalt (talk • contribs) 20:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly, the normal WP rules are not in place. Under normal circumstances NikWright2's undiscussed insertion of 10,000 bytes of badly written OR would be speedily reverted and he would be cautioned. Look at the effort you have made to discipline me for taking out a sentence. And what about the BLP policy that says - "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy." Momento (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think that rules have been broken then I suggest you seek remedial action at WP:AN or through dispute resolution. However NikWright2 claims that his changes were thoroughly discussed, and they were reverted, so both of your concerns seem to have been addressed. I also note that Jossi encourages users to "BRD", which is just what Nik did. Regarding you own deletions of sourced material, the material was not in violation of BLP and your actions were against consensus. I've repeatedly asked you if you'd revert again if the information is restored. You've also revert warred over an "NPOV" tag. You can still revert war if you choose, but you'll be limited to one a day instead of three. Why is that a problem? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD means be bold, wait for a revert and then don't revert, but discuss. Nick did not follow BRD, Will. He was bold, he was reverted, and he reverted back to his version without discussion. That is 'edit warring, upon which the page was protected. Check the page history. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If some folks weren't so quick to revert then this page wouldn't be protected now. Is Momento the only involved editor who'd opposing the 1RR proposal? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What Nik did was not WP:BRD, but WP:BRRR :). Both Francis and Momento and opposing the 1RR probation, but may not be relevant as it is uninvolved editors that will decide. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * +1. BRRR indeed. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 02:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Between the 8th of February (when Nik Wright2 made first comment on this page this year) and the 26th of February (when Nik Wright2 inserted 10,000 bytes of material) there have been over 1500 comments made by more than a dozen editors on this page of which Nik Wright2 has made 16. Four appeared in the "Peace is Possible" section, four appeared the "did donations made Rawat rich" section, 3 appeared in the "Downton" section and one each in the "Balyogeshwar", "Organization", "Headings", "References" and "External Links" sections. So Will Beback, could you point out to us all where the insertion of 10,000 bytes of material was " thoroughly discussed"?Momento (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat's Roots and Lineage.
Is there any reason why Prem Rawat's self-proclaimed lineage might not be easily discovered here in an appropriate place? Ron Geaves' 2006 academic paper entitled 'From Totapuri to Maharaji (Prem Rawat) Reflections on a Lineage (Parampura)' states the following interesting information for those who maybe are curious to know what the actual Indian roots of Prem Rawat's teachings are. (So as they can make their own minds up about how far removed he has become from those teachings). <i>

Maharaji has previously referred to this lineage as his own on his website as follows: Shri Totapuri ji Maharaj (1780-1866) Shri Anandpuri ji Maharaj (1782-1872) Param Hans Dayal Shri Advaitanand ji (1840-1919) Shri Swarupanand ji Maharaj (1884-1936) Yogiraj Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Hans ji Maharaj (1900-1966)</i>

The article at present provides no lead as to the roots of his teachings whatsoever. Isn't that a glaring omission? - only a link to this: "In the early 1980s, Maharaj Ji moved to disband the Divine Light Mission and he personally renounced the trappings of Indian culture and religion. Disbanding the mission, he founded Elan Vital, an organization essential to his future role as teacher." PatW (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not parampura, but Parampara. There are articles about these teachers at Advait Mat. That material was previously in the article, and could be re-added if it editors find that to be necessary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No true PatW. If you follow the link provided in Teachings section, you'll find what you're looking for.Momento (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see anywhere a link to this information. I've looked. Please be clear exactly where I can read that 'Maharaji has previously referred to this lineage as his own' ( I think it's important that on this occasion Prem Rawat's personal claims are reported) and the list I quoted above. I don't even see this information on the Teachings page. Maybe I've missed it.PatW (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It was there last week, editor Armeisen removed it.Momento (talk) 01:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Pat for someone who as you claim was a dedicated student for many years you surely recall the concept of the importance of a living teacher. Parampara is difficult to establish. Several scholars believe that Prem Rawat is from the Sant Mat or Rhada Soami tradition. Greaves is of the opinion that he is connected to the Advait Mat and Sant tradition.Although both emphasize the necessity of a living teacher. Its interesting that the latter have always appeared to break the conventional mold and create their own path after succession. Personally I have not seen enough evidence from either viewpoint to have a definitive answer to this. One thing I think we can be sure is that a very young Prem received it from his father. Much more of what we can add to this article needs to be verifiable. Have you any scholarly sources regards any of this that could be added?Balius (talk) 05:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, Ron Geaves is a scholarly source albeit controversial and a follower of Prem Rawat of course. However on the matter of lineage his research is as good as any except he is very keen to associate Rawat with certain forks of the lineage (as is Prem Rawat himself). I don't think that further 'verifiability' is necessary since the subject himself (Prem Rawat) published the above on his own website and Geaves has confirmed that in a publication. It's extremely typical of 'offshoots' of movements to believe and proclaim they are the exclusive 'legitimate' inheritors of the title and favour certain lineage paths. Scholars unanimously agree on this. In fact in the Advait Mat movement there plainly was (if you read their books and look at the birth and death days of the Gurus ) plenty of movement for Satgurus to coexist ie there were sometimes more than one. Also they interestingly don't all stress the importance of one living teacher and some of the Gurus seem to be perceived as sort of lesser or greater 'incarnations' if that makes sense. It's also clear that Gurus are hsitorically fond of associating themselves with past highly respected masters although they might almost as well find association with crooked ones! (since the actual links are so tenuous and wishful thinking). My own reading and investigation (out of personal curiosity) have led me to agree that Shri Hans (clearly Rawat's father and Guru) was initiated most likely by Swarupanand of Advait Mat (not Radhasoami's Swarupanand). However the Param Hans Advait Mat 'history book' disputes that he was the chosen successor suggesting that Swarupanand passed the guru mantle on to one Vairaganand. There are followers of this line active today. I've had correspondence with Mark Jurgensmeyers understudy David Lane who has written extensively on Sant Mat and Radhasaomi and Advait Mat. In his research with Jurgensmeyer (for the book Radhasoami Reality) he apparently met and spoke with various old Indian people who remembered Shri Hans. He is quite clear about the unreliability of information in India but said that he was told that Shi Hans had also been initiated by Sawan Singh of Radhasoami (prior to meeting Swarupanand of Advait mat) and was also booted out of ashrams for some perceived impropriety with women!  That was most likely more to do with his more liberal attitude to women compared to the stricter general views that would have prevailed. Another situation that is not really clear in this article is the typical situation repeated in Prem Rawat's 'succession'  where there is dispute over who is the rightful inheritor of the Guru title. Is it clear for example that his own brother (Satpal) has started his own 'offshoot' movement essentially claiming he is the rightful successor to the Guru title. Rawat may be the only valid living master in some people's views but there is an interesting pattern that certainly offers some prosaic explanations and food for thought about these beliefs.  As such I think an encyclopedia should make such information available so that people can make up their own minds about how plausible the concept of these 'living masters' is.PatW (talk) 09:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have also read the Advait Mat book. Rather than the Advait Mat book disputing Hans as the chosen successor there is no mention of him at all. Its interesting to note that Vairaganand soon became incapacitated and had a short tenure as head of the Math. David Lane's story about Shri Hans being kicked out of Rhadasoami cannot be verified. I think you find that David Lane has written extensively on Rhadasoami and Sant Mat. Advait Mat is not his area of expertise. The philosophy surrounding them are very different. This could be a subject for another Wiki article I don't know if it adds greatly to this articleBalius (talk) 12:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No you're right, I also couldn't find any mention of Shri Hans which may be a measure of their desire to dissociate from him. Who knows? It could be because Swarup did only appoint Vairaganand. Unlike followers of both offshoots I prefer not to speculate about unknowns one way or the other. David Lane knows quite a bit about Advait Mat but has not written much you're right. My impressions are that there a lot of similarities between all these groups. I've also read enough to conclude that these myriad religious groups and their petty Lords are not something I need to take remotely seriously. However they are worthy of some brief acknowledgement as the movements that spawned Prem Rawat, Ekankar, and a bunch of other Guru movements which bore me to death now frankly. I agree that all this is not worth presenting in this article and belongs elsewhere. However I think that Rawat's own claims about his lineage from his own site are an important indicator to the reader that Rawat does acknowledge very particular roots that he feels possibly stretch back till 1780. that's it really.PatW (talk) 12:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts: I've also cut out the unnecessary dramatics of the title of this talk page section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * These lineages are all within Sikh tradition, right? (correct me if I'm wrong). The only mention of a relation to Sikh tradition is currently in footnote 88 (Melton - the Sikh tradition is also at least mentioned in the sources listed in footnote 92 an 96). So, I suppose mentioning the Sikh tradition as Prem Rawat's background is something worth mentioning in the body of the article text, probably in the Prem Rawat section. Any thoughts?
 * Re. "Rawat's own claims about his lineage from his own site": is this still currently on a Prem Rawat website? I mean, I'm in doubt whether this is notable enough to mention in the Prem Rawat article when the self-published source itself would no longer be existing (when it could be included per WP:V if not contentious etc - but it appears to be contentious), and if the only still available copies of such self-published content are trivial web-copies published by organisations like webarchive that have no other reliability claims as re-publisher than that they once found that content on the web. Please provide a link if still on a Rawat-related website, and we take it from there.


 * What Rawat said on his site is not controversial. In fact I was not suggesting to use that defunct site or another internet site. Fact is that scholar Ron Geaves, who is used liberally throughout the article already, published an academic paper in 2006 with what I reported above (in italics) written verbatim. I have his paper in my hand. What controversy are you talking about? There is none. And no they're not strictly Sikh lineages apparently. Are you suggesting that because Rawat no longer expresses that belief anywhere that is paramount to a denial or that means he's changed his mind about his roots? And that it is contentious as a result? If so you might as well say that because Rawat has changed his teachings we shouldn't mention his former teachings. PatW (talk) 13:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Or do you think that Ron Geaves (being a follower himself) is so controversial that we shouldn't use him? Again if so we have to decide whether all the other entries in the article that refer to his papers are controversial. What's the consensus?PatW (talk) 13:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Pat, you're making a mess, and apparently don't read comments by others:
 * You write "I prefer not to speculate about unknowns one way or the other", well, if it's a matter of "speculation", then it's contentious.
 * You also write "And no they're not strictly Sikh lineages apparently." - Since Melton says it belongs to Sikh tradition, and you seem to indicate someone else suggests it doesn't (but do you have any source for that?), then, of course, it is "contentious". In such case we don't use the self-published source.
 * Re. "Are you suggesting that [...]", well no, I didn't suggest any of the sort. I said: probably the lineage info lacks notability for the Prem Rawat article. And you seemed to agree to that: "I agree that all this is not worth presenting in this article". So why create mess and suggest difference of opinion for an aspect where there is none? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Excuse me but I've absolutely read all the comments. What I think are speculative are the long dead Gurus claims about their lineage. I'm not suggesting we go into my speculations. However Rawat himself apparently believes in this stuff so why shouldn't we report his speculation which is perfectly well supported by Geaves? Rawats belief that he is a Satguru is arguably contentious and arguably speculative but we report that here don't we? Now if you'd read Armeseins comments to me above you would know that he drew into question my natural conclusion (which you apparently share) that the movements were broadly Sikh. He said: Did you ever go to a Sikh temple as part of that practise? Were you requested to take on a set of Sikh beliefs? If you were, then you must have received a different knowledge from me. So I wrote back: No, and I make no claims to be a scholar of religion but I am aware now that there a a number of great similarities in lots of respects with Radhasoami and all those traditions that derive from that part of India. I don't want to harp on about Sikhism because although people associate Sikhism with Radhasomai and Advait Mat there are some differences. In short I looked into this a bit further and found that the Sikh thing is a little tenuous. OK? And you also misread me completely about what I actually distinguished as being notable to include on this matter here. That is - not a load of blather about lineage from unreliable, contentious sources, or Sikhs, but a succinct reference to Prem Rawat's uncontested belief about his roots as in that list he gives us. That is palpably interesting to anyone wanting to know what line of illustrious gurus he thinks he descends from. Whether he's right or not, or scholars are arguing about it is immaterial. Yes? Please understand that I am not in the least bit trying to make a mess.PatW (talk) 14:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * More confusion, and mixing of topics. Armeisen didn't refer to lineage, nor background of where Prem Rawat grew up. He referred to practice of the adherents of Prem Rawat (and probably Prem Rawat's own attitude too). Melton (et. al.) say that the related movements were Westernised (e.g. "[...] one Sant Mat group which had separated itself from the tradition in India enjoyed great success in the West in the 1970s as the Divine Light Mission [...]" INTRODUCTION: SIKH/SANT MAT GROUPS, my bolding). No contradiction with Armeisen's comments on the practices in the movements. Melton also says "The Divine Light Mission is derived from Sant Mat (literally, the way of the saints), a variation of the Sikh religion [...] In any case Hans Maharaj Ji claimed a Sant Mat succession which he passed to Maharaj Ji." (which is in the footnote linked to above). This is completely unrelated to whether or not any Sikhism survived in the Western DLM/Elan Vital/... movements many years after Hans Maharaj Ji died.
 * And *please give the actual reference to where Prem Rawat says what*... if it's no longer available as a reliable source, we're not going to pretend it is. We're not going to say "according to Prem Rawat" unless the source is either verifiably Prem Rawat, or is a reliable source claiming that it is Prem Rawat's opinion (indirect evidence as in "a source under Rawat's control" is not going to push us to OR in claiming "Geaves said it, thus this is what Rawat said"). Even when the source is Prem Rawat himself without intermediary, and the source is still available, Wikipedia is not going to publish it if it's contentious, if we're following our own rules. So, please get informed about the rules, in this case WP:V. Even if Geaves said it (whether or not attributing it to Rawat), and he's a reliable source, we'd still need to be sure it's notable: probably not, as reliable source Melton says "... had separated itself from the tradition in India" - in that case mentioning the Sikh/... traditions Rawat's movements had separated from is probably enough, without going in to the details of their presumed, but not so very relevant, lineage. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No it's not enough. Here's why: This article is not primarily about Rawat's movement (or it's separation from it's roots)- it's about him- Prem Rawat the man. Wouldn't you agree that his beliefs are a prime ingredient in his notability since his teachings derive from his beliefs about himself being a Perfect Master?PatW (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sikh tradition? Francis, you may want to read Sant Mat and Sikhism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I read Melton, see quotes above, thank you. Whether or not Melton is the ultimate source on this (seeing Sant Mat as a tradition related to Sikhism) I don't know, but in general I read Melton as I would read any RS. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There are historical connections between Sant Mat and Sikhism, Francis. Guru Nanak and others in the Sikh parampara, are shared by Sant Mat, but that is where all connections start and end. Do you think that is needed to have an explanation of Sant Mat and Sikhims in this article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sikhism and Sant Mat have been associated with each other for a number of different reasons. These include their common location and period of origin. Melton, Gordon J. (Ed.) Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices, p.1129 ISBN 1576077616. (both evolved in the Punjab region of India and in the same period) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's the situation as I see it. If there is a consensus that it's too un-notable I'll give way to that. Reputable scholars and authors Melton and Jurgensmeyer both have generalised that Guru Maharaji was influenced by Sikhism. Quote from 'Radhasoami Reality' Princeton  The teachings of the Divine Light Mission, led by the boy guru Maharaj-ji, are essentially those of Radhasoami". (Sikh) More recently, scholars including David Lane and Ron Geaves have said that, more specifically,  the movement from which he derives is Advait Mat and that has some variants in practice, and  different guru lineage from the Sikh Radhasoami movements. The Advait Mat group have a published hagiography of their lineage going back to Totapuri which is essentially the same that Rawat and Geaves claim -  except that the Advait Mat group omit Rawat's father from their book because they dispute his 'accession'.  Prem Rawat had a personal website (which Jossi authored for him) a few years ago where the 'lineage' (not entirely 'presumed' I hasten to add) was published. Rawat said there "This is the history thus far" and there followed the exact 'tree' that Geaves went on later in 2006 to publish in his academic paper.Here it is in small part:   The only thing I consider notable to this article is that Prem Rawat and Geaves both have sought to clarify the highly obscure roots of this movement by presenting us with a nice little  'family tree' to think about. Why if they are so 'separate from the tradition in India' would they bother to do this still? I think that is because 'sensible' people do not believe that a movement like this (whose meditation techniques, songs, other practices are plainly still essentially old Indian etc. etc.) has separated at all. So they ask questions because they can see that the same experience/techniques are presented simply in a way that is more palatable to westerners. So some of those curious people obviously ask Rawat more about his Indian roots and this 'family tree' is his answer to them. Is it not the responsibility of an encyclopedia to a provide these people with some answers or clues as to where they can find this information?PatW (talk) 17:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Radha Soami is not Sikhism. In any case, and as argued before, there is no reason why not to include what reliable sources say about the claimed parampara. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No no I seem haunted by Sikh! Sorry I just read that there were some close ties and comparisons with Radhasoami but I do get the difference. Well a little anyway. PatW (talk) 23:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I just don't see this lineage as belonging in this article, especially if folks are arguing that he is a a non-religious speaker/author. Too much detail.  It only matters is he is a religious master claiming a tradition.  Again, compare similar authors -- you might mention that, say, Keynes was influenced by Thorstein Veblen, or Bly by Jung, but even then it would be one line about one or two intellectual influences. Msalt (talk) 07:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You say "It only matters is he is a religious master claiming a tradition". But is he?Momento (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * He clearly started his career as a religious master who inherited his father's status, and was claiming his tradition. When he westernized, he appears to have sort of or at least partially "resigned" from that claim, though I have seen evidence from reliable sources that would disagree on whether that was a sincere change or a strategic shift to lower his profile.
 * Either way, my personal opinion is that the details as discussed in this section of the Talk page are miles too detailed for his article. Comparable authors simply don't have their sources described that much.  I think a quick paragraph in the teachings section that references Sant Mat, Radhasoami, Advait Mat and Sikhism, briefly noting disputes and linking to the Wikipedia articles on those subjects should cover it pretty well. Msalt (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Msalt. That would be the best way. Note that there is already a mention of Sant Mat. If there are other sources these can be added and expanded in the Teachings of Prem Rawat if needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but that is simply untrue. My experience is that he is a religious master (what kind of master is he then?) and has as recently as 2006 claimed a tradition. I was taught by him that becoming a Perfect Master (or Satguru) was not a matter of influence as you say, but of a mystical transference of power and authority that manifest as a distinct lineage. There's tons of evidence of this. The fact that 'folks are arguing that he is a a non-religious speaker/author' is quite disingenuous.   Do you think a Guru is not a religious master? - especially one who has compared himself to Jesus and Krishna?  Why should an encyclopedia collude in covering up his past?PatW (talk) 09:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Parampara is a new concept to me. I'd never heard about it before this talk page section. (Well, it is in one of the footnotes of the Prem Rawat article I'd never very well understood, and again the term there was not linked to the article we have on it). Anyhow, the closest simile I'm more acquainted to is Translatio imperii, almost litterally "mystical transference of power and authority" (I wrote most of the lead section of that article, including the reference to Le Goff) - but that's rather about worldly power rooted in a spiritual/religious concept, in a Western medieval context. Yeah, parampara looks a bit medieval to my Western eyes, sorry about that. Still can't get why more modern people can get worked up about such ideas, but they do, and if they do verifiably in reliable sources we can report about it. What I learn from my (only vaguely related) "simile" is that the distinction made by Pat, the "religious" vector vs the "worldly" vector is maybe not all that important: in a medieval thinking these weren't separated. Parampara is a very old concept, dating from the time when here in the West translatio imperii still mattered, but I'm reluctant to see a self-contradiction in it from the part of Prem Rawat and his historiographers. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been around for decades and have never heard of "parampara" before today. It just is not a part of what he offers. I think the article could mention that there appears to be a lineage, but like most lineages, it is disputed. Would you be happy with that, Pat? Rumiton (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * On a related note, if I understand correctly (correct me if I'm wrong), Prem Rawat, and the spiritual leaders of his country of origin, usually belonged to the top caste of the Indian caste system, so there's both your link to "worldly power and/or wealth" belonging to the package, and to an approach that from a Western viewpoint is somewhat medieval. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I will not exactly "correct" you, but there is way more to it. In India the fact that Prem Rawat teaches the inner techniques to everyone who asks seems to be a major problem for orthodox Hindus, and probably also for Sant Mat people (though I am not sure about this.) They believe only Brahmins should learn the techniques, no one lower and certainly not non-Hindu westerners without any caste. I noticed once when an instructor who had also been an instructor with Prem Rawat's father was having a massage that he had a large, healed injury to his back. He told me an orthodox Hindu threw a brick at him as he was leaving a hall after a speech by Prem Rawat's father. I asked why, and he mentioned this issue. Rumiton (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

We've established there is no contention about the Geaves reference to Rawat's claims. So I would like to move this debate back on to why it would in fact be a considerable omission not to include reference to Rawat's own beliefs about his 'Masterly' lineage. I would like to ask the neutral editors here one question: Why, if it is important  to describe Ron Hubbard's beliefs about science fiction and aliens,[] is it suddenly not important to describe a self-proclaimed Perfect Master's beliefs about how and where his Knowledge came down to him? PatW (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't see a problem with mentioning such lineage, though it may not be necessary to go beyond Swarupanand here. Teachings of Prem Rawat has the same info. Any other views? -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 03:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever teaching lineage Rawat claims should be in the teaching article. I think Rawat would say that his lineage begins with his father.Momento (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What you think is surely irrelevant. I repeat that this was on Prem Rawat's personal website authored by our own Jossi Fresco and also is reported by Ron Geaves. Plainly we should write something less opinionated and clear than stopping at Swarupanand.<i>

Maharaji has previously referred to this lineage as his own on his website as follows: Shri Totapuri ji Maharaj (1780-1866) Shri Anandpuri ji Maharaj (1782-1872) Param Hans Dayal Shri Advaitanand ji (1840-1919) Shri Swarupanand ji Maharaj (1884-1936) Yogiraj Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Hans ji Maharaj (1900-1966)</i>

I suggest something like:

Prem Rawat has claimed from childhood that he was the latest in a lineage of 'Living Perfect Masters' (with reference). In 200? (whatever the date was) he described the history of his lineage from Shri Totapuri Maharaji (1780-1866) to his father and own Guru, Yogiraj Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Hans ji Maharaj (1900-1966).

Jossi please would you tell us when this website last had this info please?PatW (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)