Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 32

Concern regarding place/time incoherence of references
The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead section:"In June 1971, Rawat left India to speak in London, Paris, Heidelberg and Los Angeles, where he was the subject of substantial media attention and criticized for what was considered a lack of intellectual content in his teachings[4][5] and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle.[6][7][8]"My concern: Far from wanting that ref 4, 6 and 7 be removed I just want to point out that it is a non-encyclopedia-worthy type of embellishment to make it seem (in the intro of the article) as if the criticism only extends to his speaking tour to London, Paris, Heidelberg and Los Angeles after leaving India in June 1971 (mentioned in the second paragraph of the intro), and, also suggested, no later then when he turned 16 in 1973 (3rd paragraph of the Intro). --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ref 4 is a 1982 Dutch book: not clear whether it links in time or in place to any of the four places mentioned as being visited when in June 1971 Rawat left India?
 * (ref 5 is a 2001 book, as its title refers to the "late Vietnam war era" this might link to the media attention when visiting Los Angeles after leaving India in June 1971.)
 * ref 6 is from 1975. Although published in the USA (The Ruston Daily Leader) the criticism originated in fact in India, from Rawat's mother. The sentence where this reference is added jostles with that: "Rawat left India", visited four places far from India "where he was [...] criticised [...]" - and then follows a criticism originating in India... no, not OK, bad style. (bolding was added)
 * ref 7 is from 2003, and is apparently not written from a seventies perspective (e.g. "Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers." - bolding added)
 * (ref 8 is from 1997. As it is from a dictionary, and no text is quoted directly, place/time might be in order here)


 * Good point, Francis. The criticism is mostly from the 70's and early 80's. That paragraph can be easily fixed, I guess. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I know, the version I defend didn't have that flaw. So I conclude you agree I revert to that version. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean of the lead? Can you place a diff here? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your last edit to the article is the diff that removed it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My last edit was restoring the compromise version by David D.. You can add this to an appropriate place of the lead, if that will help: Rawat attracted controversy for what has been considered a lack of intellectual content in his teachings, and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Done, but note that ref codes without content can only be used if a ref with a same name and with content is on the page, see Footnotes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I checked all the refs are correct as these are used already elsewhere. See the ref section, which has no errors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I checked them: the last two didn't work: other references with the same name and no content depended on them to have content. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I will wikignome these and add provide the refs here so that these can be added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Here: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I *had* already filled them with content on the Prem Rawat article (the content that was there in the sentence I had to remove in order not to double content in the lead). I'm not the one leaving behind me semi-disabled references. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * With regards to *ref 7 -  "Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers." - bolding added) - this quote comes from a chapter titled "Divine Light Mission" [] so it is pre 1983. So 4 out of 5 references are pre 1983 (Goring being unknown). Making it's placement the "His teachings became more universal, and less Indian, and in the early 1980s" sentence inappropriate. Since we are already talking about the media attention, it is, for the sake of logic and readability appropriate to place it there.Momento (talk) 08:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you're back to place/time incoherencies with your reverts:"In June 1971, Rawat left India to speak in London, Paris, Heidelberg and Los Angeles, where he was the subject of substantial media attention and criticized by some for what was considered a lack of intellectual content in his teachings[4][5] and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle.[6][7][8] Tens of thousands were immediately attracted to his message, largely from the hippie culture. Rawat made his home in the U.S. and began touring and teaching world wide.[9][10] When he turned 16, Rawat became an emancipated minor and was able to take a more active role in guiding the movement. (bolding added)"Rawat turned 16 in 1973. The sentence before that, so before turning 16, "Rawat made his home in the U.S. and began touring [...]". Before making his home in the U.S. and the ensuing touring, "Tens of thousands were immediately attracted to his message". Before that (still according to the timeline now proposed in the intro of the article) he visited four cities outside India, "where he was criticised [...]". So, the text of the intro still implies that criticism is something happening between June 1971 and Rawat's birthday in 1973, and happend in four cities (none of them in India, nor in the Netherlands - which is also incoherent with the references).
 * As I said, "non-encyclopedia-worthy type of embellishment" - the criticism extended at least (!) from the mid seventies to the mid eighties, and originated in places not limited to "London, Paris, Heidelberg and Los Angeles" — that's what you have references for here, not for the 1971-1973 period nor for the criticism exclusively originating in the four mentioned cities. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Pretty much all the "substantial media attention" Rawat attracted when he arrived in the west was criticism. The media made fun of him for giving stupid examples, being fat and liking Baskin & Robbins ice cream. The criticism of the "lack of intellectual content in his teachings and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle" began the day he was picked up at London airport in a flower decked Rolls Royce in June 1971. That's why the lede should structured the way I proposed.Momento (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Pretty much all the "substantial media attention" Rawat attracted when he arrived in the west was criticism."
 * "The media made fun of him for giving stupid examples, being fat and liking Baskin & Robbins ice cream."
 * "The criticism of the "lack of intellectual content in his teachings and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle" began the day he was picked up at London airport in a flower decked Rolls Royce in June 1971."
 * Even if all that is true, the criticism didn't stop there, did it? The references used in the article try to give a wider scope (both in time and in place), than just some superficialities when he first arrived in the west. So, it's still incorrect to use more profound references for what in the body of the lead text refers to a relatively short period of superficial criticism. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Which criticism is superficial? The  "lack of intellectual content in his teachings" or "leading a sumptuous lifestyle".Momento (talk) 13:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "being fat and liking Baskin & Robbins ice cream"; "he was picked up at London airport in a flower decked Rolls Royce in June 1971" --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The Lede
The quotes that back the sentence regarding "lack of intellectual content" and "materialistic lifestyle" all come from the 70s. Putting it after events that happened in 2001 make it look like Rawat has been criticized for the last 40 years when this criticism was limited to the 70s. It is important that lede accurately reflects the content of the article, unfortunately some editors have chosen to create a separate section called "Criticism" against Wiki guidelines. When this article is cleaned up, those criticisms and the sources will appear in the "Leaving India" and "Coming of Age" sections where they belong. I have rejigged the lede for greater accuracy and NPOV.Momento (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no, you're repeating arguments that have been debunked above. And again, don't start a new talk page section about something that's discussed elsewhere, and even was an agreement (: "Thus, [the lead section] should include the main points of the criticism.", last sentence, nobody found anything unreasonable about that; and then a few sections lower, which debunked the argument entirely, nobody objecting) --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Could the sentence be moved to after Rawat became an emancipated minor and was able to take a more active role in guiding the movement. as a suitable compromise? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I put it there for some time, until someone else moved it again to the last sentence of the section. So I propose to keep it there (last sentence of the lead, separate paragraph) until a new consensus where to put it (if any) emerges here on talk. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it about time that editors here start looking for some common ground and developing consensus by finding a compromise that all can live with, instead of reverting each other endlessly. I would hope that both Francis and Momento would agree with me on this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Or is it time to request a full protection? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The sentence that starts In June 1971, Rawat left India could benefit by saying that he was 13 years old at the time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You haven't debunked any arguments Francis, you've just agreed with your own. If the sentence is moved from the chronologically correct 70s section of the lede, it should have "in the 70s". Suit yourself.Momento (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I intend to change Rawat has been criticized for lack of intellectual content in his teachings and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle (lede) into: "Rawat has been criticized for his teachings and for his lifestyle", and leave the details to chapter "Reception". It makes the lede a better summary, and prevents derogatory allusions from appearing twice, resulting in unproportional weight. Opinions?--Rainer P. (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Bad idea, e.g. changes focus from the teachings regarded as being too lightweight to them being erroneous (or whatnot); similar for lifestyle, unless you assume we want to add language regarding behaviour other than it being sumptuous (there is such other criticism; but thus far Wikipedians chose not to include it). And of course a Lead section contains content covered elsewhere in the article (only birth date & place, and alternative names are things that can be in a lead without being repeated in the rest of the article: the lead section is a summary). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. His Lifestyle being „sumptuous“ seems in fact to cover the main body of criticism regarding lifestyle. But a “lack of intellectual content” is in my perception not the main theme of general or academic appraisal of his teachings, rather it is a marginal – and certainly derogatory, to put it mildly – point of view. There used to be much more clamour about alleged claims of divinity, or being a heretic, or the techniques being detrimental or ineffective, or demanding personal devotion, or unsolved matters concerning succession and what not. I mean, lack of intellectual content is not typical for criticism of the teachings, so it should not be solely explicitely mentioned in the summary, when there was really a great variety of criticism with a quite different balance point. That’s why I still suggest the more general “…criticized for his teachings”, perhaps we could add: “…in various ways”, or, to be more specific, as it is said in “Reception”: “…emphasizing the supremacy of subjective  experience over intellect”  (sounds less POV. A little OR to share with you: I do admit I feel slightly offended by the “lack of intellectuality”, it makes students look like idiots). What do you think?--Rainer P. (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you shouldn't have reverted without consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't mean to either. I put the change to discussion above, and nobody objecting or contributing for a week felt like consensus alright to me.--Rainer P. (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus.
 * Further, Schnabel is a viable source, shouldn't have been removed from the lead section. That your appreciation is "derogatory" is of no consequence: it is a reliable source. Further, “…in various ways” is weaseliness, not appropriate for the cited sources. Also, currently in the reception section there are more references about the intellectual content (I counted 6), than about the sumptuous lifestyle. The other criticism is still struggeling to get proper mention in the article, so referring to it in the lead section pre-emptively is not what lead sections exist for. If it is properly elaborated in the article, than we can see what we do with it in the lead. Currently, the main criticisms in the article are sumptuous lifestyle and lack of intellectual content. Both have appropriate references. These two should be mentioned in the lead, without weaseliness and with proper references. Your edit was a step backwards for the quality of the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Resuming
The criticism sentence of the intro currently reads "Rawat was criticized in the 1970s for lack of intellectual content in his teachings,[12][13] and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle.[14][15]"I bolded the part I object to, while it is not covered by the sources: So I propose to remove the qualifier "in the 1970s" from that sentence, it is nowhere needed, while these criticisms were (as is also apparent from other sources) not something that stopped after the 70s. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ref [12] is a 1982 book, it nowhere limits the criticism to the 1970s.
 * ref [13] is a 2003 book, I've not seen anyone who could explain how it is derived from this book this criticism is limited to the 1970s
 * ref [15] is also a 2003 book, as far as I can tell deriving from it that the criticism was limited to the 1970s is an interpretation, somewhat OR-ish.

There is more wrong with the sentence.
 * ref [12] Schabel writes - "Maharaj Ji's charismatic leadership is very effective, even if comparatively shallow." is hardly a "criticism".
 * ref [13] Barret's comment that "The Divine Light movement used to be criticized for the devotion given to Maharaji, who was thought to live a life of luxury on the donations of his followers". Clearly date it to 70s possibly early 80s and contain "weasel words".
 * ref [15] Hunt's comment " Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers. However, deliberately keeping a low profile has meant that the movement has generally managed to escape the gaze of publicity that surrounds other NRMs."
 * Barret's and Hunt's comments contain enough "Weasel words" to be dismissed outright. Please read [] . Schnabel's "criticism" hardly merits a place in the article let alone the lede.
 * I can see the whole sentence being removed.Momento (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You were adamant the article was conforming to NPOV, with the sentence (and its references) included in the lead section the way it is, so I'm rejecting your argumentation above as "too weasely". --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Mishler quote (doesn't really belong to the talk page section on the criticism phrase in the lead of the article)
This may be slightly off-topic, but I can't find any mention of Robert Mishler in this or any of the related articles. He is a former president of the DLM and made critical comments about the subject. Is there a reason he's not mentioned? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was deleted because Momento found mentioning Mishler's criticism unencyclopedic. I disagreed among others because Mishler's criticism was mentioned in Melton's ''encyclopedia' of cults. Andries (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I mention him because I was just reading an L.A. Times article from 1979 that quotes him extensively. The Times is a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This Mishler?"Some of the criticism leveled at Prem Rawat derives from Bob Mishler, a former president of DLM, and Robert Hand after they parted ways with Prem Rawat in the 1970s. According to Melton in a 1986 article, Mishler's complaints — that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill and that money was increasingly diverted to Maharaji's personal use — found little support and did not affect the progress of the Mission."Can this go in the article? Does it need tweaking? If suitable for the article: where to put it? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * done. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Added subsection title (talk page organisation) --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Issues with Nik's "edit"
I read the material copied by Nik from his sandbox and found so may problems with it that I can only summarize on broad strokes what is wrong with it:


 * 1) Multiple WP:OR violations -  much editorializing, and unattributed opinions;
 * 2) Multiple WP:SYN violations, use of several sources to forward novel syntheses of these opinions
 * 3) Use of unreliable sources such as an anarchist magazine
 * 4) Multiple citations and quoted text from one source (Foss & Larkin) and Pilarzyk at the expense of other scholarly opinions available in a multiplicity of sources

The only useful thing about this edit is that a new source was found (Björkqvist), that could be used to augment other scholarly studies already used in the article.

If Nik wants to improve the article, he should work alongside others discussing a few additions at the time, in the same manner that other editors are doing here (see discussions above), so that his edits can be assessed by all involved and consensus found. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:14, 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. Could anyone point out where the insertion of 10,000 bytes of material was " thoroughly discussed"?Momento (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If the additions had the effect of improving the article none of the above would be relevant. They do not improve it, they make it thoroughly worse on every level. If there is anything there that provides new insight, let's keep it and ditch the rest. Rumiton (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * On the contrary Rumiton, it wouldn't matter if NikWright2 was Shakespeare and he'd found the Rosetta stone, an undiscussed edit of 10,000 bytes is unacceptable.Momento (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * reg. 4. I think that Nik Wright stopped the overreliance on Dowton which is a good thing. Andries (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A good thing? Overreliance? Care to explain? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So much reliance on Dowton while (nearly) excluding Lans/Derks and Foss and Larkin who had somewhat differing views is undue weight to Downton. Andries (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If in your opinion Downton was over-represented, over-representing Foss & Larkin is the solution? You do to make sense. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said that. Andries (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See Andries (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You did say it. Read your own words. If editors bring new sources or new material from existing sources, these can be discussed. There are many sources that discuss Prem's leadership issues. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant to say that in certain aspects Nik Wrights version was an improvement. Andries (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Me and several other editors here beg to differ. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nik Wright's version decreased the references to Downton from 10 to 11, so you may be you can explain your statement that his version goes the "expense of other scholarly opinions". What is the harm of citing Foss/Larkin, Pilarzyk more than the previous verion? Andries (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am puzzled by your comment. Please read my comments at the start of the thread. This "edit" suffers from a lots of problems, and if Nik, you, or anyone else wants to propose additions, do the same as other are doing here. Argue for inclusion, discuss and gain consensus. There is no other way, and you should know this by now, Andries. You are no newbie. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I only request that you explain one point of your objections to Nik Wright's version. I explained my view on Nik't version. Andries (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think that it is appropriate to use long portions of quoted text of one source? I am unwilling to consider Nik's "edit" in this way. He needs to self-revert and engage in discussions, period. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi, I admit that long quotes are poor style. Would point 4 of your objection to Nik's rewrite be dealtwith if the long quote is changed to a shorter attributed statement? Andries (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it will not. As said befor by me and others in this page, we ought to review small portions at a time, and reach consensus. Nik's "edit" is irreparable as it stands. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The pre Nik article uses Downton as a source seven times out 88 cites. That reflects Downton's unique position as the only scholar who actually wrote a book about Rawat and his followers.Momento (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"Nik's "edit" is irreparable as it stands"...Jossi. I agree. The tone of the rest of the article, though it arguably gives an incomplete and imperfect picture of the subject, is consistent, even-tempered and encyclopedic. Nik's highly editorialised and POV-drenched addition cannot be reconciled with it. The addition needs to come out before we can evaluate the points it raises, then represent them properly in an increasingly neutral article. Rumiton (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed.Momento (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Serious issue
As you may know protection of this page has ended. But WillBeback has objected to unprotecting it because he says, I (Momento) "haven't said if I'll accept the compromise on the names, and we're still debating details about the text on the residence". In other words, Will Beback wants to lock out all editors until I agree to his "compromise on the names" and "the text on the residence". So much for consensus, Will.Momento (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please remember that assuming good faith is a policy, not a suggestion. The page was protected due to revert warring. If editors here are willing to constrain their reverts, to discuss changes and seek consensus, then editing here would be much easier. I've suggested that protection be maintained pending the approval (or rejection) of Jossi's proposal for 1RR. I realize that not everyone on this page thinks that it will help. However the revert-warring is undoubtedly counter-productive so we should try to do what we can to avoid it. Mediation is another step in dispute resolution that needs to be be given a sincere try. Rather than focusing on differences, or deleting paragraphs when we disagree only with a single word, let's try to find points of agreement and seek to minimize disputes. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Does "constraining out reverts" mean accepting a highly editorialised and biased version that was foisted on us without consensus? Apart from that, I agree that too much ink has been wasted on trivialities. Rumiton (talk) 12:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with giving 1RR a try. Rumiton (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Under 1RR, every editor has permission to revert once per day. Reverting even one time a day isn't a right, it's just an allowance. The enforecement is handled by uninvolved admins. Only two types of content may be removed beyond XRR limits - clear BLP violations and clear vandalism. I emphasize clear. While one editor may consider an edit to be "highly editorialised and biased', another may see it as necessary balance. Rather than playing to the extremes let's all try to make edits that will be acceptable to every reasonable editor. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 12:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think Momento understands the nature of concensus. I think the 1RR is an excellent move forward on this article in order to reduce any disruption in the editing of the article text itself.  If anything, 1RR requires editors to discuss edits prior to reverting text in the article, thereby finding concensus among editors before reverting, and I think it's a very good idea. Long overdue, imo. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I just reread the article. It is now repetitive, incoherent and self-contradictory, and packed with pseudo-intellectual pomposity ("interregnum", for God's sake?) It is by far the worst article of several hundred I have helped develop. It will take many hours of hard work to make it even readable. And we are going to do this at the rate of one disputed edit per day? I think the only way is to revert to a pre-Nik Wright version that at least made sense, and discuss future changes from that point. Rumiton (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Protection has expired. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The NikWright2 addition has to be revered as a matter of priority. It violates numerous BLP policies.Momento (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Janice Rowe already did. In the same edit,
 * "San Ji" [sic] was added in the intro;
 * Will's cleanup of ISBN tags was annihilated;
 * The $400,000 was re-introduced two times, in two consecutive paragraphs (+ twice in the footnotes);
 * along with some other undiscussed and/or questionable material;
 * I've already removed the "protected" tag (technically a revert), which means that I couldn't even correct Janice's typos for the next week if Jossi would have it his way. So, 1RR/week - no thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem now is that any editors who want this article to be logical and readable cannot undo the duplications fort fear of being seen as "reverters".Momento (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The proposal was changed to 1RR per day, not per week. And restoring a fix (such as the ISBN numbers) will not be considered a revert in any case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that 1RR does not mean one edit per day. It means reverting another user's edit. The deletion of the duplicated material about the house, would not be technically a revert. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Jossi, abstain from making judgements on that. It would be technically a revert. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For a violation of the probation to be considered, an editor needs to go to WP:AN/I and report the violation. I would argue that anyone doing that, should be mindful of WP:POINT. I would be very surprised if an editor here will go to ANI to report 1RR probation violation on such edits; and if an editor does, I will be very surprised in an uninvolved admin will apply a block on the basis of such report. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Stranger things have happened, Jossi. I haven't made any reverts. I have re-arranged the house material to improve chronology, so I could remove the duplicate material but I'm waiting to see if anyone can provide a source for the "helicopter controversy". I will use my revert to delete it if it is unsourced. Mind you removing "unsourced" material in a BLP isn't limited by the 1RR.Momento (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Easy, Momento. Seek consensus, it works better and is less problematic. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) Jossi, abstain from making jugements on that, you've no clue what an uninvolved admin would do. Or would you consider such admin "uninvolved" yet "subject to your advise"? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh? I have been an admin for several years, and I can tell you that in cases in which 1RR probations have been enforced, these issues are resolved quite easily. Admins can see through WP:POINT quite easily. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Bolded uninvolved in my comment above. An uninvolved admin, having to take a decision about something s/he knows little could as well concentrate on the objective side of the technical revert. I have no clue, you have no clue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, the main point of my comment above was the dubious quality of Janice's single edit, it tried to do too much at once (major revert + several additions/changes). Incremental improvements are generally better. If 1RR (or the prospect thereof) leads to people favouring large, multi-faceted edits, that's generally a step backwards (unless for the geniuses among us that succeed in getting multiple things right all at once). --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

1RR probation in effect

 * The Wikipedia Community has placed this article on 1RR probation. Articles in category:Prem Rawat are subject to community-enforced article probation restrictions  for a period of three months, ending June 4 2008. Probation will be re-assessed at the end of that period, and extended if needed. Editors violating 1RR (one revert per editor per day), or that engage in disruptive editing may incur escalating blocks performed by uninvolved admins, or have other reasonable restrictions placed on them in relation to these topics. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before admin actions are undertaken. Violations, along with a link to this probation notice, should be posted to WP:AN/I, where uninvolved editors will make a determination.

Better than making even one revert is first seeking consensus for contentious edits. When we feel the need to revert let's honestly label our edits as "reverts". This probeation won't solve any of the disputes about this topic. To get resolution the steps proposed in dispute resolution should be followed by involved editors. Mediation is one possible step, but many of the simpler steps are also helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The articles currently in the Category:Prem Rawat (as of the start of the probation) are: Cirt (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Prem Rawat
 * 2) Template:Prem Rawat
 * 3) List of Prem Rawat-related topics
 * 4) Rennie Davis
 * 5) Divine Light Mission
 * 6) Divine United Organization
 * 7) Elan Vital (organization)
 * 8) Ron Geaves
 * 9) Hans Ji Maharaj
 * 10) Lord of the Universe (documentary)
 * 11) Sacred Journeys (book)
 * 12) Soul Rush (book)
 * 13) Teachings of Prem Rawat
 * 14) The Prem Rawat Foundation
 * 15) Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji? (book)

DLM/EV Articles of Incorporation
For anyone interested, I've posted on my talk page the relevant extracts from the DLM/EV Articles of incorporation which prove that DLM/EV has always had, and continues to have, a religious purpose.--John Brauns (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but that information is already available at the Elan Vital and the Divine Light Mission articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Jayen 466 13:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is, of course, a distinct difference between a "church" and "religious purpose". Your original claim, John, was that Prem Rawat had set up a "church". If you can't see the difference between a "church" and "religious purpose", then a cursory look at a dictionary or something similar should make the difference clear. Armeisen (talk) 22:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Having said that, I acknowledge that the articles of association do mention "church". Thanks JHB. Armeisen (talk) 22:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The DLM/EV Articles of Incorporation must state its status as a religion (in the state of Colorado, its place of incorporation) in order to retain it's legal church status with the Federal goverment. Under the U.S. Internal Revenue Service Code, 501(c)3, Elan Vital, formerly named DLM, is a non-profit organization, designated as a “church.”  Therefore, legally, Elan Vital is a church and must to follow the IRS code in order to retain that status.  See IRS Church Definition. But, not all 501(c)3 non-profits, such as The Prem Rawat Foundation, have a "church" designation.  This "church" designation exempts a religious organization from paying taxes on its income in the U.S. while additionally being exempt from filing annual tax returns with the IRS.   In other words, it is legally able to keep it’s financial dealings as private as any other church and religion, e.g., as the Catholic church does.  All other 501(c)3 organizations must file annual returns under the law.  You will never see any annual financial reports from Elan Vital made public because of their "church" status.  The only d/b/a of Elan Vital is Visions International, which also enjoys the same church status, thus is able to operate without disclosing its financial information to the government or the public.


 * What makes this issue so very unique and controversial for Prem Rawat is that despite the fact that Elan Vital is a legal church in the U.S. enjoying all of the tax benefits that all other church and religious organization enjoy, it claims to have no membership, but only contributors.  Having membership is one of the definitions of "church" as defined by the IRS.  Moreover, since 1972, DLM/EV has been supporting and promulgating the work of Prem Rawat while receiving this benefit as a “church,” yet Prem Rawat claims he doesn't teach or offer any religious, spiritual instruction, or any religious doctrine or message.  That is why Elan Vital's status is extremely controversial.  Elan Vital claims no membership rolls, no place of worship, no clergy, no doctrines, and even eschews any connection to its leader, Prem Rawat.  A skeptic might ask, "If Elan Vital claims it's not a religion or a church, then why are they legally able retain that IRS tax exemption and privacy protection?   If Elan Vital states it has no membership, places of worship, or religious doctrines as other IRS-legal churches do, then who/what exactly is Elan Vital except its five employees and board of directors?  If Prem Rawat does not teach a religious doctrine and spirituality, then why has Elan Vital been allowed to retain this this tax benefit for almost four decades while the non-religious Prem Rawat benefits from its support?”  Hope this explains a bit about the controversy.  Sylviecyn (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What this has to do with this article? If you have sources that describe this as Elan Vital staus as controversial, please provide them and add some text to the Elan Vital article. Otherwise, please do not use these pages to advocate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jossi (talk • contribs) 14:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Since you ask, the relevance is that Divine Light Mission/Elan Vital has been supporting Prem Rawat's "work" for nearly 40 years. Prem Rawat is the subject of this article and those organizations wouldn't even exist were it not for Prem Rawat being, well, Prem Rawat, needing their financial support. And while I'm responding to you, I do question the necessity of having separate articles each for Divine Light Mission and Elan Vital when they are one and the same corporation.  Prem Rawat is not notable enough or known to the English-speaking public enough to warrant either or both.  But, I'm not POV pushing, advocating, or anything else of the kind.  I'm simply stating the facts of the matter as they relate to the legal status of DLM/EV in the U.S. Prem Rawat claims he doesn't teach a religious or spiritual doctrine, yet he enjoys all the benefits of the financial support for his "work" of a legal church in the U.S., of which he once was named as it's "Chief Minister."  Gimme a break here and stop being such a Hall monitor all the time Jossi.  Thanks, and best wishes to you, too, Jossi.  Sylviecyn (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You are changing the subject. You are advocating for a purported "controversy" related to Elan Vital no-profit status, but that "controversy" is on your head only. If there are sources that describe that as a controversy, we can use them, otherwise you are mis-using these pages. And if you do not like my comments about attempting to keep this page focused on meaningful discussions, there is nothing I can do about it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I wrote this in the article (end of second paragraph of Prem Rawat:"In the 21st century, The Prem Rawat Foundation, not profiling itself as a church or religion-related organisation, does not report on adherents or followers, but publishes annual reports regarding its finances and activities, available through its website."Does that need additional references? (Note, above below on this page I created a section that visualises footnote content on this talk page) If it needs additional references, can someone give a hand? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Malibu house, proposed text
I think every assertion in it is reliably sourced and relevant. How can we improve it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ''In November of 1974 he moved to a four-acre property in Malibu, California that was purchased by the DLM for $400,000. The DLM, which also paid the mortgage, announced that it would serve as the West Coast headquarters for the DLM. Rawat reportedly moved to Malibu from the neighboring Pacific Palisades seeking more seclusion for himself, his family and his entourage. The property, called "Anacapa View Estates", has been described as a "palatial, walled estate" and a "lavish hilltop estate." The presence of Rawat's followers in Malibu and the installation of a controversial heliport on the property caused concerns among neighbors. After breaking with the DLM in the early 1980s, he created the North American Sponsorship Program to help pay for the home. By 1998 the property was valued at $15 million.
 * What is missing is the fact that the heliport was allowed to be built, based on an agreement with the Fire department, related to having built a massing water storage facility in the property to combat fires. Also, IMO, it is too lengthy in comparison with other material already in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it could do with being shorter (proposal below). That the DLM paid the mortgage would seem to follow naturally from the fact that they bought the property and does not need separate mention. Rawat did not have a family when he moved there, only a wife.
 * ''In November 1974, seeking more seclusion for himself, his wife and his entourage, Rawat moved to a four-acre property in Malibu, California. Purchased by the DLM, the $400,000 property, called "Anacapa View Estates" and described as a "lavish hilltop estate" in the press, also served as the DLM's West Coast headquarters. The presence of Rawat's followers in Malibu and the installation of a heliport on the property caused concerns among neighbors. After breaking with the DLM in the early 1980s, Rawat created the North American Sponsorship Program to help pay for the property, which by 1998 was valued at $15 million.
 * If any of the facts are contested, please let's hear about it. (Certainly some statements in these newspaper accounts, like that he married "a woman twice his age", are not factually correct; they were 16 and 24, weren't they?) Jayen 466 00:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's looks better to me. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Better, but still misses the point about the water reservoir, and the use of the heliport by the Fire dept. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me research the heliport again. There's quite a bit of detail about it but I think we can summarize it in a sentnce. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid nothing can save this edit. "After breaking with the DLM in the early 1980s"?!?! Incredible Will! Religious scholars Hunt, Geaves, Barret, Melton and Messer are going to be beating a path to your door to find out where you unearthed this gem from.Momento (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Given that DLM changed its name to Elan Vital and is still associated with Rawat, this sentence did seem rather odd. What about the first three sentences? Can we live with those? Jayen 466 02:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's the source for the NASP:
 * In the early 1980s, Maharaj Ji began a process of disbanding the mission and its local ashrams. He dropped the remaining Indian cultural trappings, began to call himself simply Maharaj, and, adopting an extremely low profile, chose to relate to his followers on a one-to-one basis. He created the North American Sponsorship Program to raise financial support for his home in Malibu and his many travels.
 * I'm sure other editors understand what happened at the end of the DLM better than I. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That is consistent with other sources, Will (what is NASP?). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "North American Sponsorship Program". ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, here's the source I used for the break-up of the DLM:
 * In the late 1970s the Divine Light Mission had also become the target of the anticult movement, and members were subjected to deprogramming in an attempt to break their allegiance to Maharaj and the group. In the early 1980s Maharaj responded to the problem by disbanding the mission, closing all of the ashrams, and reorganizing his following as merely informal students of his teachings. He has assumed a low profile and largely dropped out of public sight. He spends most of his time traveling the world speaking to his followers.
 * "Guru Maharaj Ji." Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, 5th ed. Gale Group, 2001. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale, 2008. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC
 * There may be other sources which describe the transition differently. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That is consistent with Melton, Hunt and others. I would prefer to rely on these scholarly sources, rather than a tertiary source such as Gale. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand, Jossi. Melton seems to be the most widely accepted source here, by you as much as anyone.  Yet every thing of his cited in this article, that I've seen, is some kind of encyclopedia -- a tertiary source.  In fact, Melton is the editor of this book you're objecting to!!   Msalt (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Opps! lol! I stand corrected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. I was just responding to Momento's questioning. If a better source exists then we can use that instead. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd also quote this report, quoting "Maharaji's attornery, Linda Gorss":
 * Maharaji's need for more flights "has to do with a change in circumstances", Gross said. Until the spring of 1984, the one-time guru was seldom at his mansion, called Anacapa View Estates, off Trancas Canyon 600 feet above Pacific Coast Highway. He and his family visited there a few times a year but they also spend time in Miami and abroad. Then Maharaji dropped his ties with the Divine Light Mission  and settled full time at his Malibu estate. 
 * That appears to be sourced to Gross. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "seeking more seclusion..." is slanted, and implies the subject is somehow a fugitive, an insinuation at odds with his highly public lifestyle and travel. "Seeking privacy..." might be better, though the whole section seems absurdly over-focused on a long ago triviality. Rumiton (talk) 04:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The source says:
 * The move to Malibu in part was to find more secluded surrounding for the guru, his wife, and entourage. Non-members sometimes would seek out Maharaj Ji at odd hours, including one who stood outside the house at 2 a.m. one night yelling, "Maharaj Ji! Maharaj Ji!" Spokesmen, citing security reasons, would not disclose the exact location of the new property.
 * So we're taking "secluded" straight from the source. It looks to me like security was more the concern than privacy, but "secluded" covers both which is why it's a good term. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What kind of a source is that? Seems close to sensationalism and tabloidism to me. Who were the "non-members" and what were they non-members of? How does the author know what happened at 2 a.m? Was he there? He is clearly repeating a rumour. Reputable sources do not make unsubstantiable claims like that. This is totally slanted stuff and deserves no place in an encyclopedia. Rumiton (talk) 05:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that the journalist is repeating what he was told by the spokeman. Anyway, it doesn't matter what his source is. The L.A. Times is a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This whole issue about the house, secluded, palatial, helicopter etc is irrelevant. Melton says all an encyclopedia needs to say "Rawat moved to Malibu in 1974. All the rest is undue weight and gossip. Can you imagine any other Wikipedia BLP containing info about a supposed dispute with neighbors? Tabloid indeed!Momento (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be saying that we're not permitted to include anything in Wikipedia that hasn't been written by Melton. As it happens the size and opulence of the house has been commented on repeatedly. A picture says a thousand words, so maybe a photo of the house would allow us to use less text? ;) ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't seem to be saying anything, I'm stating very clearly that all this trivia is unacceptable in any encyclopedia.Momento (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Momento, you have a record of deciding that things are trivia, and then deleting sourced material. I suppose if this were an article about OSHO you'd insist that his Rolls-Royces were trivial gossip too. While you have made a huge number of edits to this article it doesn't belong to you. Please don't exert ownership. You're not in a position of deciding what is and is not allowable. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Osho's Rolls Royces were mentioned in peer reviewed academic articles and they did constitute a deliberate demonstration of devotion from his students. Rawat's house on the other hand is his private residence.Momento (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A helipad sentence: OK, it went over a sentence. Perhaps Jayen466 can improve it. I think it covers the stuff Jossi wanted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In 1981 Rawat began work on a helipad on the property without first obtaining proper permits. He was eventually given permission for six flights per year on condition that he build and maintain a 50,000 gallon water tank for use by water-dropping helicopters during fires. He successfully had the limit raised to 12 flights per year but an increase to 36 flights per year was rejected in 1985. 


 * Proposal with shortened helipad section below. Can we live with putting "privacy" instead of "seclusion"? Still seems like an adequate summary to me, given that there were night-time disturbances according to the LA Times. Also now "scaling down of DLM" rather than "break with DLM". I took out the neighbors' concerns, since these only arose later, after the Jim Jones tragedy; prior to that, one of the LA Times articles said, neighbors didn't care, because he was just one of many celebrities in the area. Revision:
 * ''In November 1974, seeking more privacy for himself, his wife and his entourage, Rawat moved to a four-acre property in Malibu, California. Purchased by the DLM, the $400,000 property, called "Anacapa View Estates" and described as a "lavish hilltop estate" in the press, also served as the DLM's West Coast headquarters. Controversy around a helipad on the property was resolved by installing emergency water storage and granting the Los Angeles County Fire Department the right to use the helipad for firefighting emergencies. After scaling down the DLM's activities in the early 1980s, Rawat created the North American Sponsorship Program to help pay for the property, which by 1998 was valued at $15 million. Jayen 466 22:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jaen. That will be OK with me at this time. Let's just hope that the article will not grow too much with information that may be borderline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the LA Times article "Maharaji Denied in Bid to Triple Copter Use", "Until the spring of 1984, the one-time guru was seldom at his mansion, called Anacapa View Estates, off Trancas Canyon 600 feet above Pacific Coast Highway. He and his family visited there a few times a year but they also spent time in Miami and abroad. Then Maharaji dropped his ties with the Divine Light organization and settled full time at the Malibu estate, Gross said." Our article last had him moving to Miami in 1979 and never returning. Jayen 466 22:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * They moved to Miami after fires in Malibu damaged the house (PIP page 220). He was there until at least 1982, I'll see if I can find when they moved back.Momento (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it did but are you seriously thinking this is going in the article? It's irrelevant, undue weight and gossip.Momento (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A) Jossi asked for it. B) It's not gossip. None of it is rumors. Many public hearings were held on the permits required and it was a major issue in the community. C) So far as I can tell, as many articles were written about the heliports in the early 1980s as about any other aspect of the subject. It may not be his claim to fame, but it did bring him considerable attention. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * LA is not the center of the universe and applying for a helipad is irrelevant to his notability.05:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Momento (talk • contribs)
 * LA is the subject's home town. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Put another way, Malibu is the home of the "Lord of the Universe". So it is, in a sense, the center of the universe. Or at least the capital. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So what? Are you suggesting that if the LA Times reported that his daughter had a 21st birthday party we should put it in the article?Momento (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Times did run a short piece on the subject's first Father's Day. What seemed to impress the reporter most was that 1000 followers showed up with just 24-hours notice. There aren't many homes that can handled a 1000-person party. Earlier it ran a piece on his first child's birth, noting that it was natural, held at home (in Malibu) and that the subject assisted. Those were all remarkable facts at the time. They do give insight to the subject as a family man and tend to refute the claims by family members that he was a playboy.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

So it would naturally follow that we should have a section on natural childbirth!Momento (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll leave it to you to write that one. Regarding the heliport, a quick check reveals that this is the only helipad at a private residence in southern Los Angeles County (the mostly-empty northern part has some large ranches). L.A. County is home to the most billionaires of any county in the U.S. None of those 42 billionaires, nor the thousands of mere millionaires, has a helipad on their home, even though many of them undoubtedly own helicopters. Now these aren't sources I'd use for the article. But it does demonstrate that this heliport is unique. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Rawat must have friends in high places or have an impeccable flying record. But that's a tiny accomplishment, why mention it? At 13 he led the biggest procession in history. Been there, done that. --- "Roads in the Capital spilled over with 1,000,000 processionists, men, women and children marched from Indra Prasha Estate to the India Gate lawn. [...] People had come from all over the country and belonged to several religions. A few Europeans dressed in white were also in the procession." Guinness Book of World Records, 1970 ---Momento (talk) 09:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't add it to the article, but an official in the county government went on leave following questions about special help he'd given certain individuals (including the subject) with their planning issues. As for the march, I'm not sure why we don't mention that - it sounds notable. 15:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, I have no problems with adding a short sentence about the house, per the sources. Jaen did a good job of trimming it, may be he can now add something about the heliport and be done with it. The only concern I have is that the article can become this mishmash of information, some of which is encyclopedic and some trivial, but we shall see what happens as we move forward. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It'll take more than one short sentence. If the house were trivial it wouldn't be mentioned so often in news reports. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 15:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Le's see what Jaen can come up with. His word smithing may be helpful here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the house any more notable than flying your own 707 around the world at 25 years of age? Should we put that back in?Momento (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As I've said before, this article ballooned out to 100,000 bytes. This 1RR policy suggests no penalty for adding stuff, just a penalty for removing. Can I suggest at this early stage that we limit this article to 60,000 bytes. That way editors will have to decide and explain why something is so important to put in that something needed to be taken out.Momento (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The house is more notable because it's been noted more often. Yes, his ownership of a jet has been noted often as well, as has his ownership of dozens of cars. By contrast, his teaching are mostly noted by only his followers and some academics. I'm sure that some editors here would wish for the subject to be known most widely as a brilliant speaker on spiritual matters, but that doesn't appear to be the case. The fact is that people are sometimes best known for matters that seem trivial to some. We need to take our cue from reliable sources, both scholars and journalists, to determine what about this (or any) subject is notable. I don't think that arbitrary limits are helpful. We have many 100,000 byte articles - if it grows too large we can split off parts. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Mmmm... I beg to differ. Some aspects of a public people's life get press coverage, but that does not mean that it is related to their notability and/or that it is useful material for a Wikipedia article. This over-reverence for WP:RS concerns me quite a bit. When looking at material for articles we need to take these four content policies into account as a whole: WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:NOR. The fact that there is some material available in a source considered reliable, does not mean that it is automatically acceptable. Otherwise we would have the need for one policy only (WP:V), and that is certainly not the case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's natural that followers drawn to a teacher because of his message will think that his message is what's most important about him. It's also natural that people who just sit at home and read their newspapers will think that the person is notable for they read. A complete biography needs to address all notable aspects of a subject. The subject is not notable for being born in India, for having a wife, for having moved to the U.S., etc, yet we report these facts because they are important elements of his biography. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding policies, WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant viewpoints. Not just those included in scholarly, peer-reviewed journals, not just those included in authorized biographies, not just those preferred by proponents or opponents. I'm sure that some editors of Michael Jackson believe that his notability is due to his singing, and that we shouldn't include anything about his non-musical activities. But objective editors would acknowledge that there are many elements to the subject's notability, that when people think/talk/write about Jackson they don't limit themselves to covering his music. And vice versa, there's more to Jackson than Neverland. However we couldn't write about him without mentionining Thriller and Neverland. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree also. Will says the house is "more notable because it's been noted more often" than, by contrast, his teaching which "are mostly noted by only his followers and some academics". But the house, cars, plane etc are only notable because they are associated with Rawat. Has there ever been an article about the house that doesn't mention Rawat? I think Will trying to move this article to a more tabloid style. Rather than concentrate on the subject of the article and what makes him notable i.e. being a guru/teacher for 40 years, Will seems to want to take the emphasis away from Rawat the teacher and his teachings and place it on peripheral stuff, houses, helicopters etc. The LA Times is read by more people than Downton's "Sacred Journeys" so we should pay more attention to the LA Times and what it writes about.Momento (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You've misquoted, or misunderstood me. I was contrasting his home to his jet, in answer to your question whether it was more notable than his house. I'm not seeking to move this article to a "more tabloid style" - I'm not quite sure what that is. What I am trying to do is include facts that have been reported on repeatedly by notable, reliable sources. If you'd like me to describe what I think you are trying to do with articel I could, but I don't think that's a productive use of our time. Le'ts get back to the material at hand. Here's Jayen's draft:
 * ''In November 1974, seeking more privacy for himself, his wife and his entourage, Rawat moved to a four-acre property in Malibu, California. Purchased by the DLM, the $400,000 property, called "Anacapa View Estates" and described as a "lavish hilltop estate" in the press, also served as the DLM's West Coast headquarters. Controversy around a helipad on the property was resolved by installing emergency water storage and granting the Los Angeles County Fire Department the right to use the helipad for firefighting emergencies. After scaling down the DLM's activities in the early 1980s, Rawat created the North American Sponsorship Program to help pay for the property, which by 1998 was valued at $15 million.
 * If there are any factual mistakes then let's fix them. Otherwise I assume it is appropriate for inclusion in the article once protection has been lifted. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is either undue weight or you're looking to have a 1,000,000 byte article. And what about the rest of the 1974 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". Will, you seem to have decided to tell a story and are finding the sources to prove it but leaving out what doesn't suit, so please don't assume you can include it. Momento (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The question isbn't about undue weight, or your arbitrary length limit. The question is whether anything here is improperly sourced. You haven't mentioned anything so I assume there aren't any assertions in this text that you disagree with.
 * As for my motivation - shall we discuss your motivation too? I'll start - I did the research and found a lot of material on this subject that wasn't mentioned in the article. For example, the lack of any mention of Mishler.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Momento, you and Rumiton do not have a veto over items in this article, no matter how much you post on Talk. The current version has been negotiated and improved at length by many editors, and the only objections are vague claims of undue weight or "tabloid style" by editors with admitted COI.  That is not a valid reason to delete properly sourced text. Msalt (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Gee Msalt, if I don't use the talk page you say I'm not seeking consensus and when I do use the talk page you say I'm seeking a veto. Please tell me how I can satisfy you. And Will, I also have done some research and there is much that I could add but this is an encyclopedia not an attic. How about - "In November 1974, seeking more privacy for himself, his wife and his entourage after security issues Rawat moved to a four-acre property in Malibu, California. Purchased by the DLM as the DLM's West Coast headquarters, the $400,000 property described as a "lavish hilltop estate" in the press, was damaged by the 1979 Malibu fires. Rawat subsequently had a helipad on the property fitted with emergency water storage and gave the Los Angeles County Fire Department the right to use the helipad for firefighting emergencies. After scaling down the DLM's activities in the early 1980s,  Rawat created the North American Sponsorship Program to help DLM pay for the property, which by 1998 was valued at $15 million". Agreed?Momento (talk) 07:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not about satisfying any one user, including you or me, it's about working together, seeking consensus, to create a neutral and informative article. (By coincidence, that's the best way to satisfy me.)  Yes, deleting material without comment in a very contested page is a bad idea.  Contesting every possible issue at great length is also bad.  If you'd like to see a good model of Talk discussion, check out the Laozi page which Jossi, Vassyana and I have been editing recently.
 * The way you proposed text here and are negotiating is an excellent development. One thought -- and this is something I am sometimes guilty of too -- when we're emotionally invested in an article, for whatever reason, it's easy to fall into thinking that we personally have to comment on every contentious issue.  It's helpful sometimes to let others speak up and carry the load for a while.  Otherwise, it looks like we think we might own an article.  That's what my comment about veto was about, it seemed like you felt you were the judge we needed to satisfy.  I understand you might feel the same way about me, given your "how can I satisfy you?" comment. I apologize if I give that impression, and will take it as a good occasion to take a breath. Msalt (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What's our source for "security issues" and the 1979 fire? Why are we deleting other sourced info? Can you explain the changes? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll look it up, but I recall that the house was included in a report on a different fire in which it was threatened. I'd also cite that story as yet another example of the notability of the property. In a compendium report on wildfires in Southern California, it was one of the only properties indentified individually. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Security issues is one of the bits you left out of the 1974 article. The 1979 fire damage is covered in Peace is Possible and presumably in the reliable LA Times. You have deleted so much from the articles to make your synopsis, it's hard to tell what you mean. Momento (talk) 08:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Will, why don't you create a separate article about the notable house?Momento (talk) 08:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no need to be snide. IIRC, the source didn't say "security" but I suppose that term could be inferred from the circumstance. The source did say "seclusion" or "secluded". Someone else wanted it to be "privacy". I'm not sure why we can't just use the word from the source, but if you guys think "privacy" or security" are better words that's fine with me.
 * I don't know what you mean by "deleted so much from the article in your synopsis" - we can't include every word in every source. It's the purpose of an ecyclopedia to compile and summarize material.
 * Can you explain your other changes as well, please?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What you explain as "we can't include every word in every source. It's the purpose of an ecyclopedia to compile and summarize material", I call "conjectural interpretation" as in WP:BLP - "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". That is, you "summarize" what you want from a source and ignore the rest. As for your comment " the source didn't say "security" ", I suggest you re-read the reliable LA Times, particularly the sentence - "Spokesmen, citing security reasons, would not disclose the exact location of the new property".Momento (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you may be confusing two issues here. Every editor MUST take part of a source and discard the rest.  Otherwise we could just copy and paste the article, in clear copyright violation.  The BLP policy says to look at WP:OR for more on conjectural interpretation.  The section at point appears to be WP:SYN, and this section of the OR lede:  "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources."  I don't see any sign that Will BeBack is conjecturing or using this source to say something not clearly meant by the source, nor do I see you even making any case that he has done that. Msalt (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As i said, "security" is fine with me. Why did you remove "Anacapa View Estates"? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No what you said was "the source didn't say security" and it did, you were wrong. Why did I remove "Anacapa View Estates", please look at BLP, particularly "Wikipedia articles should not include addresses".Momento (talk) 11:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I don't have access to every piece of data at every moment. Is "Neverland" an address of Micheal Jackson? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 12:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Neverland was a name Jackson gave to his property. Other examples are The Ponderosa and Gracelands. Anacapa View Estates is a specific address indentifying locale. Momento was quite correct to remove it in mop. Balius (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not an address. An address would be something like 1500 Anacapa View Lane. This is the name of the property, as shown by relaible sources. For example, I've already cited aboce this text: "Until the spring of 1984, the one-time guru was seldom at his mansion, called Anacapa View Estates..." Another article says:
 * Until last spring, Maharji was seldom at his mansion, called Anacapa View Estates, said Linda Gross, a Los Angeles lawyer who represents him.
 * "Ex-Guru Seeks to Expand His Heavenly Rights" JUDY PASTERNAK, Los Angeles Times Apr 11, 1985; pg. WS1
 * What's our source that contradicts these and says it's an address? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is an address, Will. Many properties in that area do not have a street number. (you can check Google Maps, or any other mapping app online) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A) We have sources that say it's the name of the property. B) Google maps is a poor source for the existence of street addresses. C) A street address does exist for the property, according to FAA records. D) Google maps has no trouble finding that address. E) Many other properties nominally located on the same street have addresses. F) The property is composed of several lots, at least one of which has an address on an interescting street. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's an address and that's that. Next you'll be saying that we can say "it's the big house next up the hill to number 14 Mockingbird Lane" and since we don't say it's number, it's not an address.Momento (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Momento, Will could not have been more detailed or persuasive in his points. No offense, but "It's an address and that's that" is absurd as a response.  Next you'll be saying "Yes it is!  Is so!  IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS IS."  Ancapa View Estates doesn't even make sense as an address.  Why would the address of one house have "Estates" (plural) in it?  Many articles refer to the city or district that a well known person lives in -- Hollwyood, Brentwood, Jackson Heights, etc.  No one considers that to be an address. Msalt (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A city or district is an entirely different matter to a house name. There are hundreds of houses in Malibu but only one "Anacapa View Estates". Just like there are thousands of houses in Washington but only one "White House". BLP policy is clear - Wikipedia articles should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons". "Anacapa View Estates" is contact information. Our responsibility is to follow BLP policy not to try and circumvent it and not to propose or make edits in the expectation that other editors will fix any mistakes. BLP should be written conservatively.Momento (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Could we apply a do no harm? It seems to me that the address of a LP is a delicate matter, and the wording for that material will not suffer if we exclude the address or what seems to be the address. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * E/C Yes, there's only one "White House", and only one "Neverland". Is including the names of those properties in biographies a violation of BLP? I don't think so and I think our articles on George W. Bush and Michael Jackson would be much poorer if we didn't include the names of their most notable residences. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think that if you type Neverland on google maps, you get Jackson's house. Again, I would request that it is considered omitting the address, as per "do not harm". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But is listing the name of an estate in habited by a public figure an automatic BLP violation? Is the listing of Gerald Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster's country house a BLP violation too? Certainly many people would like to harm George W. Bush - so should we delete "White House" from his bio? Google leads us right to it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not claiming a BLP violation, Will. What I am requesting is to consider omitting the address per do no harm, given the fact that the name of the estate is actually an address. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I have made my arguments already, and it is unnecessary to repeat them.It is up to you and others here to decide if it would be OK to omit the address or not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You haven't responded to my sources that show the name isn't an address and that the proerty has a normal street address. You haven't provided a source calling it an address. If you and Momento are going to say that it's an address just because you both call it an address then our standards for sourcing are being thrown out the window. What harm are we doing by re-publishing a name already published numerous times? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Up to you and others, Will. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're wise to step back from this one. That leaves only one editor who is insisting that well-sourced, NPOV, material cannot be included. I hope we can get consensus on this minor point without further disruption or personal remarks. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, George Bush's address is not given in his article and the address of Gerald Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster is given as Omagh, County Tyrone, Northern Ireland. The equivalent Malibu, California, USA. I guess that settles that.Momento (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's settled if we follow their example. You're confusing the Duke's birthplace with his reseindences, at least one of which is listed by name, Eaton Hall (Cheshire). As for Bush, article on G.W. Bush lists his official residence, the (White House. His private residence, Prairie Chapel Ranch, ia mantioned in several other articles, including one about his daughter. The summer home of G.H.W. Bush is also listed, Walker's Point. So if you're fine with following those examples then we should be done arguing over this text.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not confusing anything. I followed your link to Gerald Grosvenor, 6th Duke of Westminster article and there was no mention of his residence. But you've proved my point,  Eaton Hall (Cheshire), the (White House and Prairie Chapel Ranch, have their own articles because they are all notable buildings. Rawat's isn't. Momento (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Now we're just going in circles. No one is contesting that the material is accurate, verifiable, or NPOV. The mentioning of named estates is obviously not a BLP violation because the information is included in the bios of numerous prominent individuals. Wwe've gone over the notability issue many times before and have shown that it a noted property with a unique facility. Etc., etc. Let's avoid going over the same ground again and again, and try to make some progress instead.
 * Here's the text we've got so far, including the additions by Momento.
 * ''In November 1974, seeking more privacy and security for himself, his wife and his entourage, Rawat moved to a four-acre property in Malibu, California. Purchased by the DLM, the $400,000 property, called "Anacapa View Estates" and described as a "lavish hilltop estate" in the press, also served as the DLM's West Coast headquarters. Controversy around a helipad on the property was resolved by installing emergency water storage and granting the Los Angeles County Fire Department the right to use the helipad for firefighting emergencies. The property was damaged in a 1979 fire. After scaling down the DLM's activities in the early 1980s, Rawat created the North American Sponsorship Program to help pay for the property, which by 1998 was valued at $15 million.
 * If someone has the page cite for Peace is Possible that'd help. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is the one, you've got the chronology wrong. -  "In November 1974, seeking more privacy for himself, his wife and his entourage after security issues Rawat moved to a four-acre property in Malibu, California. Purchased by the DLM  as the DLM's West Coast headquarters, the $400,000 property described as a "lavish hilltop estate" in the press, was damaged by the 1979 Malibu fires. Rawat subsequently had a helipad on the property fitted with emergency water storage and gave the Los Angeles County Fire Department the right to use the helipad for firefighting emergencies. After scaling down the DLM's activities in the early 1980s,  Rawat created the North American Sponsorship Program to help DLM pay for the property, which by 1998 was valued at $15 million". Thanks.Momento (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that the approval of the heliport came before the 1979 fire. That's why inserting the fire as the main action doesn't make sense. The 1979 fire came midway in the chronology. Also, you mention "fires" in your draft - was it damaged by more than one fire? Also, you omit the name of he estate despite sourced evidence of its notability. Otherwise that draft is pretty good. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Why don't you show us the articles and we can see what is written.Momento (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * One article is online here ("Maharaji Denied in Bid to Triple Copter Use", about half-way down); this mentions the estate's name and dates the first helicopter landings permission to 1980. The other article is here. (These are convenience links, with the usual caveats, rather than LA Times originals.) Jayen 466 12:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I note that entering "Anacapa View Estates Malibu California" in Google Earth locates the property. Google Earth also locates "Neverland Ranch Santa Barbara" (in addition, in the article on Neverland Ranch we give its precise street address), and it also locates George Bush's ranch by entering "Prairie Chapel Ranch Crawford TX". Bill Gates' house is identified by its exact geographical coordinates, as well as its street address. So this is clearly not without precedent. However, I am not sure I agree with all of these precedents! Some feel a bit over-eager and potentially invasive. As for this case here, I think the benefits of having the name of Rawat's property in the article are marginal. I don't think I would insist on it. If people are interested, I reckon they can google this information, or find it in the biography. Jayen 466 11:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Jayen466 makes some good points. One of them is that the names of prominent estates are routinely included in their inhabitant's bios. The identification of the property with the subject is easily verifiable. It's neutral. But is it invasive? That's a problem with subjects who once were celebrities but now wish for more privacy. Google Earth reminds us that none of us has the privacy we might wish for (even sovereign nations have had their secrets revealed). Nonetheless, in the interests of peace and consensus, I wouldn't object to deleting the estate's name even though it's well-sourced and relevant as part of trying to minimize the verbiage and stay scrupulously correct. That leaves us with:
 * ''In November 1974, seeking more privacy and security for himself, his wife and his entourage, Rawat moved to a four-acre property in Malibu, California. Purchased by the DLM, the $400,000 property and described as a "lavish hilltop estate" in the press, also served as the DLM's West Coast headquarters. Controversy around a helipad on the property was resolved by installing emergency water storage and granting the Los Angeles County Fire Department the right to use the helipad for firefighting emergencies. The property was damaged in a 1979 fire. After scaling down the DLM's activities in the early 1980s, Rawat created the North American Sponsorship Program to help pay for the property, which by 1998 was valued at $15 million.
 * Any objections to this text? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 12:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * How about this for the first sentence: In November 1974, seeking more privacy for himself, his wife and his entourage following security concerns, Rawat moved to a four-acre property in Malibu, California.
 * I think we still need to insert a source that the property was purchased by DLM. Plus the Cagan cite for the fire damage. We should retain some sort of reference that there was a controversy around the helipad (which the above version does, and an earlier proposal didn't). Jayen 466 12:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't found the word "controversy" or any suggestion of controversy in the LA Times article re the helicopter. Unless someone provides a source for this claim I am going to have to remove under BLP policy. The 1978 Mailbu fires material provides two benefits - it explains why Rawat & Co moved to Miami in early 1979 and also makes sense of why he would put emergency water at the heliport. Logically and chronologically, the "fire" comes between the house purchase and the emergency water. Therefore - "In November 1974, seeking more privacy for himself, his wife and his entourage after security issues Rawat moved to a four-acre property in Malibu, California. Purchased by the DLM  as the DLM's West Coast headquarters, the $400,000 property  was damaged by the 1978 Malibu fires. Rawat subsequently had a helipad on the property fitted with emergency water storage and gave the Los Angeles County Fire Department the right to use the helipad for firefighting emergencies. After scaling down the DLM's activities in the early 1980s,  Rawat created the North American Sponsorship Program to help DLM pay for the property, which by 1998 was valued at $15 million". In the meantime, I will shift "the fire" material to its correct logical and chronological place.Momento (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hang on Momento, source coming in a mo. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 17:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Happy to wait Jayen, I have altered the second mention of the house to insert the "fire material" in the correct place. I have left "controversy" awaiting a source. Is anyone going to be brave enough to remove the duplicate material?Momento (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * First: LA Times 1985/7/7 Maharaji Denied in Bid to Triple Copter Use: "Maharaji-the professional name now used by Prem Pal Singh Rawat, formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji-can continue descending from the skies to his landing pad 12 times a year, the annual limit imposed for five years in April, 1983. Six landings were originally allowed in 1980 because Maharaji agreed to install a 45,000-gallon emergency water storage and pumping system that would be available to county Fire Department helicopters." The way I understood the sources, the installation of water storage was not to protect his own property, but a condition for his being allowed to use the helipad -- it was felt the helipad should serve some public benefit as well. More on the original controversy around the helipad to follow. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 17:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It was a trade off.Momento (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Second:  (these are all convenience links, with the usual caveats): It appears some of the residents were upset about the potential noise pollution caused by the helicopter, as well as the permission for this helipad setting a precedent for others. It sounds plausible to me.  Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 17:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Many development applications are opposed but it's hardly a controversy. And the fact that Rawat was allowed to build the heliport is evidence that the authorities decided that his application was fair and the objections over ruled. So claiming it was a "controversy" is not only an overstatement, it suggests that Rawat did something wrong when in fact he didn't. Momento (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * From one of the above articles: "The guru has taken out full page advertisements in local newspapers to try to placate residents' groups which vigorously oppose the heliport, saying it not only creates noise but is an unnecessary hazard." I think this means it was in the public eye to a sufficient degree, at any rate more than ordinary planning issues, to make it notable. Even The Times in the UK had an article about it. It does not imply that he did anything wrong; after all, a compromise agreement was reached to everyone's satisfaction, and we say that. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 18:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the strength of the word "controversial" that I object to. It is a disagreement with neighbors over a development application and it isn't significant enough to warrant a sentence in an encyclopedia. I wonder why we are even including the helicopter business in the article. If everyone thinks the heliport is important, I think it would be better to stick with the facts - Rawat was able to build a helipad on the property after agreeing to supply it with emergency water storage and give the Los Angeles County Fire Department the right to use the helipad for firefighting emergencies.Momento (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The page number in Cagan's book for the fire in Malibu p219-220: Judy Osborne recalls Maharaji asking the staff to leave immediately. "He didn’t want any heroics," she comments, “even though this was his home and everything that he had was in there.” His concern was for their safety. "The fire came but it blew right over the house," she remembers. "All the trees were burned, and so were the grass, the shrubs, and the hills around there. And then there was the soot. Everything in the house was filthy from soot."Maharaji and his family stayed with his brother, Raja Ji, for a while, and then within a few months, they relocated to Miami while the Malibu house was being repaired. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose we could quote the text you gave above in the reference as small text, though perhaps not strictly necessary for such a minor issue. On the other hand, it explains the move to Miami. Any views? Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 18:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There are no reasonable arguments for excluding the name of Rawat's Malibu property, "Anacapa View Estates." The name has been published in reliable sources many times; the name of the residence is a matter of public record, based on the helipad approval by public officials; and the helipad is designated for public use by publicly funded firefighters in fire emergencies.  The name of this estate is even more public than, say, Bill Gates's home or any other public figure's home based on it's unique situation of having the helipad with the conditions set forth by public approval process for the helipad.  "Anacapa View Estates" is not the street address of Rawat's home, it's the "name" of his residence.  Using it is not a violabion of BLP, therefore it should be included.  Sylviecyn (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Since we're still wordsmithing this I've posted the text here with some changes:
 * ''In November 1974, seeking more privacy for himself, his wife and his entourage following security concerns, Rawat moved to a four-acre property in Malibu, California. Purchased by the DLM for $400,000, the property also served as the DLM's West Coast headquarters. Described in the press as a "lavish hilltop estate", it was damaged in a 1978 brush fire. Controversy around a helipad on the property was resolved by installing emergency water storage for use by the Los Angeles County Fire Department in emergencies and by limiting the number of permitted flights. After scaling down the DLM's activities in the early 1980s, Rawat created the North American Sponsorship Program to help pay for the property, which by 1998 was valued at $15 million.
 * I changed "the 1978 Malibu fires" to "a 1978 brush fire", since there was only one and it was obviously in Malibu. However the text isn't quite right when it says "Controversy around a helipad on the property was resolved by installing emergency water storage..." There were really two issues. The first was the original construction of the heliport without getting permits from CalTrans and the Coastal Commission. That was resolved by adding the water tank. The other controversy was about the requests to increase the number of permitted flights from the original six to twelve and then to 36. That controversy was not resolved by the water tank. The first request for an increase was granted and the second was denied. I'd say the sentence could by made more accurate by adding to the end, "and by limiting the number of permitted flights". It would be inaccurate to say that the heliport was built in response to the fire - the first application for it was submitted in 1977. Also the NASP was set up to pay for the property, nto to help the DLM pay for the property, according to the source. As for the word "controversial", it was cited in the first draft I posted at the top of this section. Here's the reference:
 * One person he helped was the Guru Maharaj Ji, head of the Divine Light Mission, in his successful bid to oopbtain a conditional use permit to build a controversial helipad on his Malibu estate. The religious group obtained a one-year trial despite intense opposition from some homeowners when Deane Dana, the new 4th District supervisor, led the board in granting the permit.
 * "Interest Conflicts: Planning- Door Open to abuses?" VICTOR MERINA Los Angeles Times; Jul 22, 1981, pg. A11
 * Here's an earlier reference:
 * The county Board of Supervisors Thursday approved a one-year trial for a controversial helipad at the Malibu estate of Maharaj Ji, spiritual head of the Divine Light Mission sect. Gary Hoffman, president of the West Malibu Homeowners Assn., called the board's action "ridiculous" in the face of community opposition. In August, 1979, the county Regional Plannng Commission denied Maharaj Ji's application for a conditional use permit for 180 landings a year. In appealling that decision to the supervisors, Ji reduced the number of flights to six a year.
 * "1-Year Trial OKd for Sect's Helipad" Los Angeles Times May 22, 1981; pg. F6
 * I'd also note the headline of one article. "Maharaj Ji's Helicopter Plans Stir Furor" Jan 17, 1980. "Furor" isn't quite the same as "controversy", I'd argue it's more intense. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks great, with the added bonus of addressing the limit on permitted landings. I am for implementation (unless someone has a good source asserting that DLM definitely remained responsible for the payments – though even so, the wording suggested above still would cover this). Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 22:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Version proposed above, now with revised citations -- pls check:
 * ''In November 1974, seeking more privacy for himself, his wife and his entourage following security concerns, Rawat moved to a four-acre property in Malibu, California. Purchased by the DLM for $400,000, the property also served as the DLM's West Coast headquarters. Described in the press as a "lavish hilltop estate", it was damaged in a 1978 brush fire. Controversy around a helipad on the property was resolved by installing emergency water storage for use by the Los Angeles County Fire Department in emergencies and by limiting the number of permitted flights. After scaling down the DLM's activities in the early 1980s, Rawat created the North American Sponsorship Program to help pay for the property, which by 1998 was valued at $15 million.
 * Unless I've overlooked something, we still need to indicate a source for "4-acre", and a source for the DLM having been the purchaser (wasn't that in Melton?). Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 01:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Melton says " Premies purchased an estate in Malibu into which the couple moved".The LA Times 1/12/79 says - "In 1974, the Divine Light Mission purchased the four acre $500,000 Anacapa View estate as the residence for its youthful leader etc". Unless anyone can find a source that says the DLM sold it to someone else, DLM is the one paying it off.Momento (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Have inserted the LAT cite mentioning DLM above. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 12:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There are sources saying that the DLM made the down payment and mortgage payments. There are also later sources that say the property belongs to Seva Corp. I haven't seen anything in the news about a transfer. The information is in public, primary sources but unless it's reported in a secondary source we shouldn't report it here.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The article "Guru's Heliport Backed as Fire Aid", Los Angeles Times 25 March 1982, ROBERT W STEWART, pp. WS1, WS14 has the following quote: "According to Linda S Gross, a San Diego attorney who represents the applicant, the property is owned by Anacapa View Estates, which in turn is a legally registered fictitious name for the Seva Corp. of Nevada." See also
 * Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 12:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Without more information it's hard to know if Seva is a part of DLM/EV, or if title to the property was transfered from DLM to Seva. It would be unsupported OR/SYN to assume that DLM continued to hold title or needed to be paid unless we can find a source that says so. We know that Melton says the NASP was created to pay for the property and the subject's travel expenses. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"In the early 1980s... Prem Rawat abandoned his "almost divine status as guru".
This is really not true. There is a video from summer 1980 on Google where Rawat's own words completely negate this and also enumerate, for example, the amount of ashram members in Europe, and his attitude to these things. I am posting a precis of his words here because I feel that editors who are not familiar with the historic facts should have some irrefutable perspective/information other than is presented here. Many feel this article uses selective quotes to play down the Hinduistic/Avatarist nature of his teachings well into the eighties and beyond.

Here is the link to a Google Video of Prem Rawat, in a talk with ashram premies (his followers who lead a monastic lifestyle-Recorded in Rome, Italy June 25th, 1980.) 

Here's my precis (it's an hour and a half long):

"There is a very big difference between you accepting/choosing to be in an Ashram - it's not your own wish and will...it's a gift that given to premies by Guru Maharaji...to have a chance to dedicate and devote this life...Ashram means 'shelter'...we need the shelter of Guru Maharaji from this world...One of the basic things of an ashram is to dedicate your life, to devote your life...truly...what is the motive..our understanding of GM has to be there." (Talks about stuff you don't do in ashram like watching a movie..eating ice cream cones..how it's a waste of time..becomes an ordeal for "This Mind".) " What has to happen? When it rains a lot of drops fall which never become a part of that ocean - then there are some drops who fall in one particular place who will definitely get to the ocean. Where do we fall? - Initiators are taught in the 'Candidate Program' to be nobody (indicates this is run by him personally)..they have to lose themselves completely. And they haven't. "What is a premie in this day and age and since ever a human being was created?"   "A premie is not just someone who has received Knowledge"  "The definition is one who has received the gift that GM has bestowed upon that being, practises that gift, has that love, has that faith and has surrendered in his heart towards towards Maharaji, towards the living master of this day." "To be in an Ashram is not a joke..not everyone's gonna be in the Ashram..very few people in fact...it could be everyone of you sitting here." "What is the purpose of the Ashram? How does it fit into the propagation. "Look..whenever Guru Maharaji is going to come into this world... and has... and will..and by his grace will keep coming again and again and again - because it's not guaranteed either..he can skip a turn and that'll be the devastation of this entire planet!" "Then there will be those devotees who undoubtedly want to dedicate and devote this life - would like to hand him the reins of this life..not everybody's gonna be able to do it. A few can do it. For those few devotees who want to give this life one single purpose..Satsang, Service and Meditation..Ashram is for those people. "Guru Maharaji himself..that power himself does take a human form so that you can relate for every individual human being" "GM has given you that opportunity to be his premies in this day and age" "Mind just brushes it off" Time is coming when Ashrams are becoming what they're supposed to be..that holy environment ..maintained by you..your responsibility..no games." "We've had enough of the games" "The season for skating over the ice is over" "We have to wake up and arise" "To gear up to the consciousness to have the first Public Program" (Talks about how GM is the "only solution to bring peace to the world".) Who's gonna take care of all these aspirants? "in which way will these people be able to come and see what we are preaching, what this knowledge does in one's life?" "Will ashrams demonstrate that?" 36:00 "We have to understand that what we have to do is what GM wants us to do not what our stupid mind tells us to do" "If our faith in GM isn't there then the mind is gonna win every single time" ..."All the joking around has to stop and the deep commitment has to happen"...."How is propagatation going to happen?" " More than anything else by everybody being ready to obey Maharaji's Agya (orders)" "A beautiful opportunity has been given to you..you've got to somehow quit listening to your mind" "When you get up and say (after singing Arti) 'Bole Shri Satgurudev Maharaj Ki Jai'... mean it." "When you sing Arti mean it." Second Half: "How many Ashrams are there in England? There are between 46-70 in the great United Kingdom" "How many of you want to be Initiators" "How many of you have sent in an application?" "You know it's really incredible. This year the whole picture is changing." "It's not all a piece of cake..Initiators make a lot of mistakes...they're in a peculiar position...they're not solid as a rock..we had an acute shortage.right now there an 'IDP' (Initiator Development Program) program that's been going on 14 months." (This took place in Malibu and was directly overseen by Prem Rawat). "There's different stages of surrender" "How do you surrender to GM?" "let go of your ego, your mind, most important that something that's inside of you that's you..your concept of you...to let it go.. Surrender is a chain reaction..Satsang, Service, Meditation has to happen" "What does SSM bring..love and faith in GM." "understanding this is where I need to be" "then slowly I can let go of myself". "If my faith isn't there I can't surrender to GM" "(when I am surrendered) my heart that has been pouncing in the ways of the world will be docked at GMs feet. Then that will be my salvation". "Someday with GM's grace there'll be ashrams everywhere." "There has to be a necessity..then yes I can see there will be good reason" "Everybody wants to be in the nice ashram..with the nice view...all that has to go away....we have to learn a little humbleness..to be that little humble..if we can have that ...GM's grace..be worthy of that..have that love..SSM...that will carry us.." 1:13:10 "Not to get into relationships, not to get into ego trips, but to stay in that space, with GM" "In the coming years, I am trying to work at this, to upgrade the living standards" (Talks about plans to make ashrams centres for propagation). How many Ashrams premies in the UK? 340? How many Germany? Heil! Huh? 120. From Scandinavia? 60 And Italy? 53. France? 170. Spanish? About 50... Portugal? About 60. Greece? Austria? Israel? Egypt? Yugoslavia, (inaudible answers) How many ashrams are ready for inspection? (laughter) The white glove treatment!"

I personally have limited time to join in here from now on due to work pressure - there is another link to a video on the same subject (ashrams) from june 1979 Lingfield UK here PatW (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think your foot got in the way of your shooting again, Pat. The article says in effect, "Prem Rawat changed things in the early eighties" and you say "No, he didn't. Look, this is from 1980!" I hope that was a genuine mistake, and not a deliberate fiddling with the dates in the hope that no one would notice. The speech here, while not acceptable as a source, also supports the statements made in the article that the ashram rules were not for anyone who wanted to receive Knowledge, but only for those who wanted a far higher level of commitment. Rumiton (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The way it reads it looks as if he swept 'his divine status as guru' away circa early 1980. I would argue that he didn't and even now has not completely - isn't it true that many followers still sing Arti to him and perceive him very much as they did then? Also, (as I say on Google) and you point out, in this video he does almost try to put people off the heavy Ashram commitment (I was there by the way) but on the other hand presents it as the greatest opportunity for premies. I personally think that many people suffered huge dilemmas of conscience about this and that has never been addressed - hence a lot of the criticism he receives today from premies who were very devoted at the time. This article leans terribly heavily towards playing down Rawat's advocation of the ashram imho. Why you yourself even argued the other day here that Rawat never advocated a monastic order! That is why editors should be aware of the facts no matter if it is not acceptable as a source. Basically you are for some reason apparently keen to paint a particularly inaccurate picture. Several impartial editors have told me they value some reports of personal experience as, presumably, it helps them see the whole story. Of course I'm not fiddling with the dates. As a matter of fact, Rawat continued very much advocating the ashrams (whilst trying to purge them of 'hangers on') until 1983 when, as is reported, he very suddenly shut them. So I don't dispute the ashram dates, just the insinuation that he dropped his 'divine status as guru'. That is absurd and you must know it.PatW (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It says the early eighties, Pat, not early in 1980. Abandon this futility. Rumiton (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So I take it you do think "In the early 1980s Prem Rawat abandoned his almost divine status as guru". Thank you, but I disagree. It'd be nice if we could have less of this 'Cease and Desist' tone here and just hear out each others points.PatW (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Rumiton, I'm having trouble finding our source for this assertion:
 * In the early 1980s, the Hindu traditions and religious parables that had been prominent in Prem Rawat's teachings were abandoned as obstacles to a wider western acceptance of his message, and gave way to an exclusive focus on "Knowledge", a set of instructions about living life. Formerly considered the "Perfect Master", Prem Rawat abandoned his "almost divine status as guru". Spiritual growth was no longer attained by the grace of the guru, but from the teachings and their benefit to individuals.
 * Here are the two ciations being used to reference that assertion:
 * The teachings provide a kind of practical mysticism. Maharaji speaks not of God, but of the god or divinity within, the power that gives existence. He has occasionally referred to the existence of the two gods—the one created by humankind and the one which creates humankind. Although such references apparently suggest an acceptance of a creative, loving power, he distances himself and his teachings from any concept of religion. It is not clear whether it is possible to receive Knowledge from anyone other than Maharaji. He claims only to encourage people to "experience the present reality of life now." Leaving his more ascetic life behind him, he does not personally eschews material possessions. Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers. However, deliberately keeping a low profile has meant that the movement has generally managed to escape the gaze of publicity that surrounds other NRMs."
 * Hunt, Stephen J. Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction (2003), pp.116-7, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 0-7546-3410-8
 * Maharaji had made every attempt to abandon the traditional Indian religious trappings in which the techniques originated and to make his presentation acceptable to all the various cultural settings in which followers live. He sees his teachings as independent of culture, religion, beliefs, or lifestyles.
 * Melton, J. Gordon. Encyclopedia of American Religions.
 * Perhaps there's a better way to summarize those statements. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Saying that he has abandoned his almost divine status is a very strong and contentious point.  In fact, it can be seen as detrimental to Rawat, both by lowering his status and indicating a certain cynical manipulation of his own image.  It certainly should not be included without a source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msalt (talk • contribs) 20:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, Stephen J. Hunt Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction (2003), pp.116-7, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 0-7546-3410-8 says - "Once viewed by followers as Satguru or Perfect Master, he also appears to have surrendered his almost divine status as a guru.Now, the notion of spiritual growth is not derived, as with other gurus, from his personal charisma, but from the nature of his teachings and its benefit to the individual adherents to his movement. Maharaji also dismantled the structure of ashrams (communal homes)".Momento (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We should add that reference to the article. Does it also say that this happened in the early 1980s? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Momento, I know it is very true that our personal testimonies are not WP:RS here but in the talk pages we are free to express our personal opinions within limits. I have no problem in saying that as a follower of Prem Rawat I believed he was the incarnation of God with a capital 'O' and 'D'.  I think it would help these discussions if you, Rumiton, Jossi and any other premies here, would answer a simple question so that we know your position - do you believe Prem Rawat has a unique divine status, at this moment in history?  Yes or No?  --John Brauns (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've always understood "divine" to mean "of or from God", as such I believe we are all divine.Momento (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked you if you believe Rawat is uniquely divine, so you didn't answer my question.--John Brauns (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We're all unique John.Momento (talk) 10:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * in the talk pages we are free to express our personal opinions within limits. Sorry but no. These pages have been abused lately with too much chatter unrelated to improving the article. Those who want to discuss personal opinions on the subject, or present their personal testimonies, beliefs, or disbeliefs, should do that in their talk pages, or better off-wiki. Any attempts to convert theis page into a WP:NOT, will be vigorously opposed, as it is detrimental to an orderly debate about improving this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This talk section is about beliefs in Rawat's divinity, and how to express those beliefs in the article. I think it would help other editors if they knew whether you, Rumiton and Momento still believe that Rawat is in some way uniquely divine, as many premies did in the 70s.  I don't want to start a long debate - just a simple declaration of your beliefs would be fine.  --John Brauns (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't we make a blacklist of suspicious editors, administrated by John? With people redbaiting each other? It would make things so much clearer!--Rainer P. (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That list may have been drawn up a long time ago. John is a self confessed apostate of Prem Rawat's teachings. Someone who it appears believed Rawat was uniquely divine.Whatever that means, I expect he no longer holds that believe. I don't think follow editors will be particularly helped by Rumiton and Momento making a declaration on this matter. Our focus needs to be on a creating a Wiki article Balius (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course you’re right. I was just trying to be ironic. Being German, with a history of Gestapo and Staatssicherheitsdienst in my veins, I just allowed myself a little idiosyncrasy regarding anybody trying to systematically snoop on people's Gesinnung (hard to translate that one. Perhaps “innermost disposition” or “attitude”) for propaganda purposes.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll try to make myself clearer. I understand and accept that this article needs to be based on reliable sources, but the discussions on this page are often about what content from those sources to include and what weight should be given to differing views.  I am suggesting that we can use another source, not to directly reference, but to cross-check the academic sources against.  That source is the premies and ex-premies who contribute here.  I'll give a banal example - a while back there was a discussion about the picture of Rawat's malibu house.  The picture was rightly excluded because of copyright considerations, but part of that debate was whether it actually was his house.  Now Jossi could have immediately confirmed that it was as he has been there many times, but for some reason he chose not to.  Now this business of Rawat abandoning his divine status can be clarified by the premies and ex-premies who post here, so that the right balance can be achieved in the article.  I have given my view, and I see no reason why others who lived through those times cannot give theirs.  BTW, 'uniquely divine' is something like Jesus Christ for Christians.--John Brauns (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * John, personally I have no idea what Prem Rawat's house looks like, and Jossi has been chiefly representing the Wikipedia view in this debate, but I take your point. A lot of nonsense has been sincerely proposed by editors who "weren't there", picked up from so-called reliable sources, that could easily be quashed by anyone who WAS there. The idea that the expression Lord of the Universe was a serious form of address to Prem Rawat rather than a silly term from someone's Catholic upbringing, and the expression forgiveness blessing spring to mind. Nonsense and red herrings, both. I think we can all be more aware of these things, from both points of view, and help each other make the article more truly neutral. Regarding my current view of the subject, meine Gesinnung (Rainer, in this context I would say "underlying feelings", though I know it isn't quite right) I will try to oblige tomorrow. Rumiton (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Die Gesinnung, taken literally, basically means something like a fairly consistent way your senses work, rather than an emotional or cognitive condition (OR).--Rainer P. (talk) 08:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Senses? Not really, I think, in English "senses" are more physical. More an ethos, isn't it? Anyway, let's leave it as intriguingly untranslatable. So, in deliberate defiance of Wikipedias's guidelines re Article Talk Pages and assuming good faith rather than suspecting game playing on behalf of John, here is the way I see the subject.


 * Q. Is Prem Rawat like Jesus to me?


 * A. No. Small children often talk about their "imaginary friend". If they continue with this fantasy into adolescence it can become disturbing. Adults who talk this way are downright creepy. Yet this is the basis of most religions. Jesus, Krishna, Mohammud, Buddha and God him/herself seem to me like imaginary friends. I am not impressed by them. I am impressed by Prem Rawat.


 * Q. Do I consider Prem Rawat "uniquely divine"?


 * A. "Divine" is one of those words. Someone might say that divinity is incompatible with mortality. Or they might say the opposite, that since we are all creations of God, we all must be divine. Watching Prem Rawat's videos for many years I have seen that he shows certain consistent qualities. He speaks with kindness and humour about human life. He has an understated clarity of perception. He consoles and empowers those who listen to him. He is patient and without spite. He overcomes failure and mockery and does not become embittered. These are desirable qualities for me in my life, and practising the techniques helps me to progress towards them. Rumiton (talk) 13:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There can't be many COIs greater than believing the subject to be divine, so I think the question is fair enough. Of course, other editors are free to refuse to answer or offer up obfuscating answers. --Simon D M (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you read what I wrote? Rumiton (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you ever believe Rawat was like Jesus, Buddha, Krishna? There are many reliable sources that state he presented himself, and was worshipped by his followers, as divine.  If you didn't, what did you make of those, like me, who did?--John Brauns (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A good and fair question, I think. I was raised as an atheist, I never went to Sunday School or had any religious education. I still don't have much respect for these otherworldly figures, it seems to me that the world would be a nicer place if they had stuck to their carpentry and charioteering and left people alone to develop their natural kindness. I did bow to Maharaji, as we all did, because I liked and respected him for the very positive changes he and Knowledge had made in my life, and because it seemed like the thing to do. I doubt that I would have thought of doing that by myself. These days when I see him I just wave and smile at him, and he waves and smiles back. It is way better. The Holy-Joe premies who had a Sunday School approach to Knowledge made me feel uncomfortable. Some of them are still around, and they still make me feel that way. Have I answered you? Rumiton (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Contentious edits

 * "despite rising mistrust of cults."?. This is a headline from the LA Times but no evidence is put forward in the article. It is a beat up and unworthy of an encyclopedia. Momento (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure which aprt you think is unsupported - the continued support for Rawat or the "rising mistrust of cults". Both are supported in the article, which was written in the wake of the Jonestown mass suicide. The article specifically details how people inside and outside the DLM were concerned or even frightened by the group. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

emphasizing the superiority of subjective emotional experience over intellect.[86][87][88][89] - does it really say emotional experience in these sources? Can somebody, who really has these books, please look it up? Just to make sure, that this erroneous cliché (OR) comes from those sources, and not from Wiki-editors. Andries?--Rainer P. (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't see anything in Derks and van der Lans that support the quote but Barret says "The experience is on individual, subjective experience rather than on a body ofd dogma, and in its Divine Light days the movement was sometime criticized for this stressing of emotional experience over intellect. The teaching could perhaps best described as practical mysticism". Again, Barret doesn't criticize followers, he says the "movement was sometimes criticized". And I can't see any basis for the claim "emphasizing the superiority of subjective emotional experience over intellect". Leaving out the previous sentence ("The experience is on individual, subjective experience rather than on a body ofd dogma,) also distorts the meaning as the following sentence talks about "this" stressing, referring to the previous sentence. I'll add some material.Momento (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly, "written the wake of the Jonestown mass suicide". Guilt by association. Just like interviewing people who work in very tall buildings after "9/11". Typical tabloid. The LA Times has written dozens of articles about Rawat, to only take just one quote from one article and ignore all the other material that the LA Times has written is a "conjectural interpretation". The LA Times is a newspaper, not a peer reviewed academic paper and to use it to make a general comment on the opinion of entire country is simplistic. It is also far too US centric and LA centric, did the rest of the world have a  "rising mistrust of cults" in 1979? The headline says it all "Malibu Guru", LA's own. Momento (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not "tabloid" or "gossip" to say that the Jonestown mass suicide colored the perception of new religious movements. It is a fact, amply documented by reliable sources both in general and specifically in regard to DLM.  Your "tall buildings" comparison is not apt, because the safety of tall buildingers per se was the least important element of 9/11 for most people.  However, an article about national security issues in the United States in this decade would be highly distorted if it did not mention that 9/11 colored the perceptions of Americans concerning terrorism and civil liberties.  In the same way, pretending that Jonestown did not shape people's reactions to other new religious movements is a heavy distortion.  It doesn't matter whether or not it was ever fair to compare DLM and the People's Temple, just as it doesn't matter whether the threat that resulted in 9/11 justifies warrantless wiretapping.  That there is a connection in peoples' reactions is verifiable and encyclopedic. Msalt (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's unacceptable to take an article that is based on interviewing half a dozen people in a small town in America and put in an encyclopedia as if it is a world wide opinion. Since the article calls Rawat "Malibu Guru" and the article canvases the opinion of Malibu residents, we need to change the quote to "despite rising mistrust of cults in Malibu" or remove it entirely.Momento (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Malibu is not just a "small town in America". It is the adopted home town of the subject and incidentally one of the most culturally prominent places in the current age. The subject's neighbors were interviewed and expressed nervousness and fear about the possibility of a repeat of the Jonestown tragedy as did the subject's leading follower. Neighboring Topanga Canyon had already been the site of a previous cult-related killing. Personally, I think the subject has disposed himself well in transitioning from the 1970s to the current time. He was once lumped with leaders and groups that have come to worse ends since then. Based on clear and reliable sourcing, it's correct  to say that the atmosphere in the U.S. towards unusual spiritual sects changed after Jonestown, that the subject's organization and presentation changed partly in reaction, and that the subject and his organization have survived without any notable scandals. The criticisms of the subject (greed, vapidness) are relatively minor compared to those of many other spiritual leaders, living or dead, of the modern era.  Also, due to financial difficulties (see below) the group may have had to retrench regardless of the anti-cult movement.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 12:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The LATimes article is fine. I don't see anything wrong in the way LATimes reporter Mark Forster wrote the article.  He interviewed premies in Malibu, the home of Rawat who said things to Forster that were typical premie comments at the time.  He quoted from a reliable source about what Bob Mishler said in his UPI interview about DLM/Rawat.  He interviewed residents of the Malibu community to get their opinions about the subject.  Then he contacted DLM's spokesperson, Joe Anctil, in Denver for comments, which Joe Anctil took full advantage of by responding to Forster -- Anctil is quoted in the article.  Forster even offered to give Rawat an interview but was told that Rawat doesn't talk to the press anymore.  I think that Forster used all of the basic principles of newspaper reporting and covered his bases professionally by using credible sources and providing the view of various people who were in some way connected with Prem Rawat at the time.  California residents were particularly disturbed and concerned by the Jonestown Massacre because Jones's was based in San Francisco.  Articles in newspapers like the LATimes are not printed in a vacuum at the whim of a reporter, but go through fact-checking and source checking in order to avoid legal problems.   The article provides quite an accurate snapshot of 1979 America's concern about cults post-Jonestown.  Given that the LATimes is a very reliable source, and the article itself is well-sourced and doesn’t distort the facts, I don't think any complaints about the article are warranted. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the article says that the US following has fallen, it is clear that it is the Malibu following that "Malibu guru has maintained". As for fact checking, they couldn't even get the year he arrived right and credit him with two children in 1974 when he had none.Momento (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A difference in Rawat's arrival year is minor and may be correct if the reporter is referring to when Rawat arrived in the U.S. The article isn't about that subject, it's about concern about a cult leader's influence on young people. But, what's interesting is Anctil's spin on Rawat's lack of leadership of premies because at the same time Actil spoke to the LATimes's reporter in early January, 1979, the Denver DLM IHQ was gearing up to move to Miami Beach in early 1979 with Maharaji, including Anctil, who ran the premie travel agency AITTA, which was conveniently located in an adjoining office space to DLM headquarters on Alton Rd., Miami Beach.  By April, 1979 I was transferred to Miami to work at DECA, of which Rawat had total power and control, including over the hundreds of DLM ashram premies who by summer, 1979 had been transferred from their local communities around the world.  And thousands of community premies from around the country and world migrated to Miami.


 * The article also gives a lot of well-deserved credibiilty to Bob Mishler, who clearly wasn't willing to, and didn't, criticize Maharaji when he left the cult in 1977, but after the Jonestown Massacre Bob did feel compelled to speak out about his concerns surrounding Maharaji's behavior. It's a pity Mishler is now dead and can't respond to the likes of Cagan who has her own hagiographic spin on things and never even interveiwed Rawat for the book which is a biography of the guy.  So it's a bit humorous for me to read about Anctil, DLM's public relations person's "spin" about the extent of Rawat's leadership control over premies, when every single thing related to that B707 project was commanded by him and I know this for a fact because I worked in the Design/Engineering Depts. where Maharaji spend the vast majority of his time at DECA every single day, and from which all his orders for the jet flowed.  Sylviecyn (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

May I bring the problematic word emotional back to attention? If it cannot be sourced properly, it must be deleted. Subjective is definitely not emotional. In a public interview with Martha Robbles Prem Rawat stated clearly, that the experience of Knowledge has nothing to do with emotions. So the criticism section has to be more precise at this point, as to not accidentally add OR to what appears as a quote. If nobody can clarify, I will delete after a decent term.

BTW: The Reception section is now highly unbalanced. On one side there are quantities, mere numbers, but criticism is elaborated qualitatively. This may be a consequence of the observation that the many content students are not as viciferous as the few detractors, who have an axe to grind. But it gives a distorted overall picture, and there will never be consensus about that. Thoughts?--Rainer P. (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest that a discussion of the "reception" deserves a separate thread. See  below.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, thank you. I place a copy of the edit there.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Positive Bias
"Rawat has been criticized for lack of intellectual content in his teachings,[12][13] and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle.[14][15]" Does not amount to criticism, you find more than one line on articles about even the most laudable people. If four sources of criticism are here presently three books and an articles, a section or a page on criticism is certainly achievable. It is clear this article is Heavily biased, ~60kB and only ~20 words of criticism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.217.206 (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read more carefully, there is a criticism section. If you can improve it by adding encyclopedic quality material from reputable sources, please do so. Rumiton (talk) 11:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The organizations, here, have apparently always had disparate public and private teachings. Public teachings include statements like "I am not God. My Knowledge is God.... I am just a humble servant of God." Private teachings were promulgated by deniable "premie rumors" and by the lyrics of a song medley called "Arti" which was sung to a picture of the guru in ashrams and premie houses twice a day, in English and/or Hindi, to the light of a ghee wick candle. Private teachings include "Sat Guru gives true Knowledge. Sat Guru is eternal Knowledge. (Arti)" One of the universal "premie rumors" is the statement that "the mind is Satan." This is to some extent documented by a quotation from the Guru's mother, published in 1973, "All my son wants is your fickle, human mind," and by the Guru's printed "Commandment" "Leave no room in your mind for doubt." The Guru was pushing premies to get divorces, give him all of their money and worldly possessions, and move into ashrams several years after he and his mother fired each other, so, again, a balanced article would state that he lived an extravagant lifestyle while demanding poverty on the part of his devotees. It would also point out that when he later closed the ashrams, he did not give any of the residents their money back.
 * Wowest (talk) 08:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * All unsourced, and your usual personal reminiscences, Wowest. Is this disruptive editing? Pretty close, I would say. Rumiton (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Disruptive editing? That's absurd. Many current and ex-devotees of Rawat have shared their inside knowledge on this Talk page, and I welcome it (provided the writers are reasonably concise and not filibustering.)  Obviously it can't be used in the article, since it's OR, but I think it's helpful, for example, in determining whether we are giving undue weight.   Msalt (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not absurd. This is not "inside knowledge." Look at the above contribution point by point and you will find nothing but a quite savage collection of rumours, allegations and gossip. It advances the neutrality of this article not at all. I honestly am starting to wonder if you understand the difference. Rumiton (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * All those thing can be proved by reading old 'Divine Times' satsangs, None of those points are 'rumours, allegations and gossip' in fact it seems you are the one trying to mislead. You are fond of threatening us (without good reason) to cease and desist from saying what happened. I won't say the same to you. I don't need to. I am simply too pleased to observe that present company seem to be able to see through your accusations with remarkable equanimity and fairness.PatW (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Msalt, with all respect I can muster, you are mistaken. These "testimonies" are totally unacceptable. Or do you want current students to start commenting here about their wonmderful and positive experiences? What is undue weight, it to allow these people to use these pages to disparage the subject of this article, bait other editors, and disrupt the editing process or the discussions we re engaging in. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said, I'm not looking for "testimonies" or filibusters from either side. But devotees (including yourself) as well as ex-devotees have filled in knowledge that I or other uninvolved editors could not possibly be expected to have, and I welcome it all.  That does not mean that I accept or approve of the speeches that Momento and PatW launch into, of course.
 * But in the example at hand, Wowest is describing a difference in external vs. internal pronouncements that is exactly to the point. I certainly don't take it as face value, I welcome rejoinder by others with similar experience, and of course it can't be used in the article itself.  But I hardly consider it "disruptive editing", any more than it was disruptive editing for you to share your experience in [this edit.]  I welcome all good faith information.  Msalt (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Good faith information? The mind boggles. Look at it, as I said, point by point.


 * Private teachings were promulgated by deniable "premie rumors... Is Wowest saying Prem Rawat went around starting "premie rumours" that contradicted his public speeches? There were and less often now, still are premie rumours, most of them were and are absurd. Unless Wowest can prove Prem Rawat starts them he should keep silent on the subject.


 * ...and by the lyrics of a song medley called "Arti" which was sung to a picture of the guru in ashrams and premie houses twice a day, in English and/or Hindi, to the light of a ghee wick candle. Arti is an entirely traditional Hindu devotion to the Guru, performed morning and evening by millions. I have heard it myself sung by the Ganga River, complete with ghee candles. Prem Rawat did not make it up. It is one of the Indian "trappings" he did away with in the early 80s.


 * One of the universal "premie rumors" is the statement that "the mind is Satan." This is to some extent documented by a quotation from the Guru's mother, published in 1973, "All my son wants is your fickle, human mind," and by the Guru's printed "Commandment" "Leave no room in your mind for doubt." Satan is a Christian concept which Prem Rawat has never used. He certainly did say "Leave no room in your mind for doubt." A different thing altogether.


 * The Guru was pushing premies to get divorces, give him all of their money and worldly possessions... Really? Who says so? I know plenty of people who had money and were married then (my own parents, for goodness sake) and still are and do, and consider themselves premies.


 * ...and move into ashrams several years after he and his mother fired each other, so, again, a balanced article would state that he lived an extravagant lifestyle while demanding poverty on the part of his devotees. Nonsense. He never "demanded poverty" of anyone. Only ashram premies lived without personal possessions, which was the traditional Indian way of escaping from the burdens of "wordly" responsibility. Another thing he got rid of in about 1983.


 * It would also point out that when he later closed the ashrams, he did not give any of the residents their money back. He didn't have it. According to sources, the ashrams internationally never achieved more than self-sufficiency. All the money they provided and more was spent on running them. Rumiton (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Jossi, you may be right, but I'm going to assume you're a pretty busy guy and you've just missed the larger point here. Rumiton seems somewhat bent on deliberately ignoring it. The point here, referred to by Wowest, made by 129.11.217.206 is that the article is not balanced. I'm not claiming or debating any scientific method here, but this seems a simple enough test; I looked up the first article I could think of for someone who  is/was known for their good works. Mother Teresa came to mind. The article there is about 4361 words long. It has  criticisms totalling 504 words, for a percentage of  11.5% of the article.  That seems reasonable to me, along with the fact that it's already received a WP:GA stamp. Compare that to this article, we have currently 2508 words, and 119 in criticism, leading to 4.7% of the article. Perhaps you, as somewhat of an authority on the matter, would like to contribute to this section for balance, or because of your COI maybe you could just steer me in the right direction to reputable sources that accurately criticize Prem Rawat? Maelefique (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no section on "Criticism" per se and there is substantial material on the article already related to setbacks, family split, and other such issues. All the sources that we have discovered over the years, are available in Prem Rawat. I would argue that per policy, an article should not have neither a positive nor a negative bias, rather, Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, and I believe we are getting there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi, again, you're right (about not wanting to have a bias), and again, missing the point. There is no criticism section in this article, yet even an article on Mother Teresa, which has already passed the test for WP:GA has a criticism section, and it's twice as long (as a percentage of the article) than what is written in this article. To suggest that criticism is covered because he had setbacks and a family split is nonsensical at best, at worst, it's a deliberate attempt to impede the progress of this article. Your suggestion that an article would have some kind of bias if it included a criticism section is equally ridiculous, as per Pope_Benedict_XVI, another article that has passed WP:GA, it also has a criticism section. In fact, it only takes a moment to think that idea through, without a criticism section, you are *clearly* advocating a positive-only bias to this article. If that's the case, ok, fine, but please don't pretend otherwise. Secondly, I asked for your help in finding sources we could find acceptable for this article, regarding valid criticisms, and you point me to Prem_Rawat?? A little disingenuous, obviously not helpful, and a little insulting. If you ask me how to change the oil in your car, would you expect me to merely toss you the construction guide for your vehicle? Even if I had a pretty good idea of what you were asking, and I also knew where you could probably find it?Maelefique (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi, current students are welcome to come here and discuss these things. In fact if you look on my user page you will see Tim Hain has done exactly that. He distinctly doesn't share your views. You mock the intelligence of all these neutral editors by suggesting they can't (with a little investigation of their own) arrive at sensible conclusions- unless they are protected from hearing testimonies from former followers. (By you and Wiki Lawyering) You and Ruminton's constant push is to limit information. Bring on your student friends and let's see if they have different accounts. Fortunately it's not that hard for sensible impartial people to discern who is telling the truth. It just takes reading between the lines. You and your little group are plainly the ONLY ones who don't want all the information bought to the table for analysis and discussion. What does that tell us?PatW (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It tell us that there are some people here that want to use this as a discussion forum, and others that are interested in developing articles. Wikipedia is not a social network platform: it is a communiy of people interested in editing an encyclopdia. You can have your "discussions" and "testimonies" in your talk page, or your blog. But not here, please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi's right that this isn't a general purpose discussion forum - all discussion here should be focused on improving the article. Comments which include personal knowledge or recollections, such as "I never heard him say that" or "That matches what I remember", are appropriate and helpful. The main thing is to avoid discussing the subject without reference to the article, or posting anything that's a clear BLP violation. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That's what I was trying to get at.  Thank you. Msalt (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I find this back-slapping over 'understanding the definition of what constitutes relevant discussion' a little insulting, since it is conspicuously aimed at people like myself as if I/we don't 'get' what is appropriate to discuss and in what manner to do so. I assure you I do 'get it' (and have for a long time) and find these condescending 'reminders' from Jossi in particular most unwelcome.  Jossi in his usual passive/aggressive manner has actively discouraged people from posting relevant information and their personal experiences and he is still doing that! (see above) He has long held such discussion to be inadmissible and enforced that view as best as his 'position' has allowed. Since we are all agreed that discussion should refer to the article and be germane to that, perhaps Jossi and his like-minded editors could stop chiming in with these irrelevant objections when all I/we have ever done IS supply personal experiences and point towards other factual information relevant to the article (as you recognise is perfectly helpful). God help us if we try to actually edit! Does anyone realise how hostile it feels to have been so consistently resisted for so long and subjected to such repeated fanatical 'WikiLawyering'? To be honest Will, Msalt and Jayen's much more dispassionate way of dealing with this aggressive buffoonery is SO welcome. For the first time I am quite happy to take a back seat while they do an admirable and intelligent job of untangling the impenetrable barrier of nonsense surrounding this subject.PatW (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Too much information
Aren't we getting a little carried away with "The event featured spectacular staging and a 56-piece rock band". I'm thinking of challenging its relevance.Momento (talk) 12:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we're not, and I strongly object to you making such an edit. This event was a pivotal event in the life and career of Rawat, and the style of the event was a major part in the massive publicity (including award-winning national television program) that it brought to Rawat. This is all documented by a large number of both scholarly and high quality mainstream journalistic sources.  One scholar calls it "the youth culture event of 1973;" another calls it "the turning point" for Rawat and the DLM.  Yet given all that, it has only a single paragraph in this article.  This is highly relevant. Msalt (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I also think that placing 12 references (!) for the same material is a bit over the top, in particular when the sources say more or less the same. The Mission incurred a debt estimated variously from $600,000 to over $1 million as a result, severely damaging its finances.[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Jossi, the section was deleted by Momento whose edit summary said "Exceptional claims need exceptional sources" [], and he just announced plans to delete part of this section again on yet another pretext. I am trying in good faith to meet the frequent and often contradictory objections, mostly by that one editor, to anything s/he perceives as critical of the article subject.  It would be helpful if you could say a word or two to restrain that editor, who clearly follows your lead.


 * Also, the sources document the entire paragraph, not just the debt. Would you prefer allocating the sources between the individual points (attendance vs. debt, for example?)  I will look for cites that merely repeat the others and try to delete a few. Msalt (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is an overkill. All what sources are for is to verify the material. If there are 20 sources that assert the same thing and there are no competing viewpoints, pick a couple (the best or more representative) and dismiss the others. If the sources diverge considerably, we present the competing viewpoints, attributing the opinions to those that hold them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi, you're not addressing Msalt's point on the contradictory demands: Momento deletes if there's not a truckload of high quality references (and if s/he thinks it's not all to the glorification of our article's subject), and still then objects expansion of the text in the body of the article; you object to "too many references", but equally don't support the expansion of the text in the body of the article, covered by those sources. If demands remain thus contradictory, and nobody can sort it out with Momento and you, I'd recommend to keep it "as is" in the article, and defend that version. We're nobody's subordinates answering to every contradictory, and after a time somewhat gratuitous, request. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi, you're the one who asked for more sources. "I think that there are many other sources that address the "Millenium" attendance, and the losses incurred. We ought to present all these competing viewpoints, not only Foss." [] On top of which, Momento added one of those references just recently!  I will remove it (since, as an encyclopedia, it is an inferior tertiary source) as well as the less informative newspaper accounts, leaving the scholarly and superior journalistic citations. Msalt (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, done. I also redistributed the sources to the individual sentences of the paragraph. Better? Msalt (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, much better. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with this article and How to Solve it
A majoritarian approach to an approved version has prevailed without the questions about the inadequacies of this article being addresses. For all the hyperbole that was ranged against the recent major edit, not a single editor who opposed the edit addressed either of the two fundamental problems that that edit was concerned with – the problem of structure and the inadequate range of references. What the majority of editors seem to want is the least worst option that maintains their preferred take on NPOV content, and are clinging on to it like a security blanket.

Lets be clear – following The Register article the Wikipedia community decided that the Prem Rawat article was not adequate – a revert was made, not on the basis that the revert version was good but that it was a ‘less worse’ place to start from. And even that version was 99.9% the creation of three editors who now persistently oppose change.

The current structure is problematic because it does not allow a more reasoned use of the available references, additionally it ossifies the false conflation of, on the one had Rawat the individual and on the other the history of Rawat’s movement.

Core References
There are six academic references that have been written contemporaneously with, or are based on, first hand study of the conditions and events surrounding Rawat’s life. These are:

Daniel A. Foss; Ralph W. Larkin Worshiping the Absurd: The Negation of Social Causality among the Followers of Guru Maharaj Ji Sociological Analysis, Vol. 39, No. 2. (Summer, 1978), pp. 157-164. Online copy - http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/w_absurd.htm

Daniel A. Foss; Ralph W. Larkin From “the gates of Eden” to “day of the locust” ,Journal Theory and Society ISSN 0304-2421 (Print) 1573-7853 (Online) Issue Volume 3, Number 1 / March, 1976

Downton, James. Sacred Journeys: The Conversion of Young Americans to Divine Light Mission, (1979) Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-04198-5. Online extracts -

Galanter, Marc. CULTS: Faith, Healing, and Coercion Oxford University Press, 1989. ISBN 0-195-12370-0 Online extracts - http://www.prem-rawat-bio.org/library/galanter.html

Galanter M, Buckley P, Deutsch A, Rabkin R, Rabkin J. Large Group Influence for Decreased Drug Use: Findings from Two Contemporary Religious Sects American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse Vol 7. 1980 Abstract online -

Price, Maeve The Divine Light Mission as a social organization. Sociological Review, 27, Page 279-296 1979 online copy -

In addition there is Jeanne Messer’s first hand account published in an academic journal Guru Maharaj, Ji and the Divine Light Mission. The New Religious Consciousness, Bellah, Robert and Glock, Charles (Eds.) pp. 52-72 University of California Press (1976) Online copy -

And there is also Stephen Kent’s observational analysis From Slogans to Mantras: Social Protest and Religious Conversion in the Late Vietnam War Era Stephen A. Kent Other academic works fall into two categories – first there are those comprised of desk based research and analysis, and there are those which a merely cataloguing (encyclopedification) existing published sources. Of the former Pylarzyk’s is perhaps the most comprehensive work but Dupertuis, Derks & Lans (Lans & Derks), Haan, Hummel, Juergensmeyer and Rife all provide valuable reference material. Geaves work is compromised by his failure to acknowledge within the body of his work, his own very direct role in the Rawat movement. The encyclopaedists present a range of problems; errors are frequently repeated from one to another, and the prejudice of original sources is in some circumstances taken as defining fact without any valid reference, Barret’s and Chryssides’ work for instance appears to be very much be ‘after Geaves’ and Hunt seems to be making it up as he goes along. The chronology of the encyclopaedists is often at variance with the work of researchers and with media reports.

Research

Björkqvist.KWorld-rejection, world-affirmation, and goal displacement: some aspects of change in three new religions movements of Hindu origin Encounter with India: studies in neohinduism  N. Holm (ed.), (pp. 79-99) - Turku, Finland. Åbo Akademi University Press. Copy online -

Derks, Frans, and Jan M. van der Lans.Subgroups in Divine Light Mission Membership: A Comment on Downton in the book Of Gods and Men: New Religious Movements in the West. Macon edited by Eileen Barker, GA: Mercer University Press, (1984), ISBN 0-86554-095-0 pages 303-308 Copy online -

Dupertuis, Lucy Gwyn Company of truth : meditation and sacralized interaction among Western followers of an Indian Guru                Thesis (Ph.D. in Sociology) -- University of California, Berkeley, Dec. 1983. Bibliography: leaves 335-342 How people recognize charisma: the case of darshan in Radhasoami and Divine Light Mission. Sociological Analysis, 47, Page 111-124. (1986): University of Guam Copy online -

Haan, WimDe missie van het Goddelijk licht van goeroe Maharaj Ji: een subjektieve duiding from the series Religieuze bewegingen in Nederland: Feiten en Visies nr. 3, autumn 1981. (Dutch language) ISBN 90-242-2341-5 Copy online -

Derks, Frans, and Jan M. van der Lans. Subgroups in Divine Light Mission Membership: A Comment on Downton in the book Of Gods and Men: New Religious Movements in the West. Macon edited by Eileen Barker, GA: Mercer University Press, (1984), ISBN 0-86554-095-0 pages 303-308 Haan, Wim De missie van het Goddelijk licht van goeroe Maharaj Ji: een subjektieve duiding from the series Religieuze bewegingen in Nederland: Feiten en Visies nr. 3, autumn 1981. (Dutch language) ISBN 90-242-2341-5 Copy online Hummel, ReinhartIndische Mission und neue Frömmigkeit im Westen. Religiöse Bewegungen in westlichen Kulturen Stuttgart 1980, ISBN 3-170-05609-3 Juergensmeyer, Mark 'Radhasoami Reality', Princeton Paperbacks ISBN 0-691-01092-7

Kranenborg, Reender Dr. Oosterse Geloofsbewegingen in het Westen ("Eastern faith movements in the West") (1982) (Dutch language) ISBN 90-210-4965-1 Lans, Jan van der and Frans Derks Premies Versus Sannyasins originally published in Update: A Quarterly Journal on New Religious Movements, X/2 (June 1986) Copy online -

David Rife Shabdism in North America Paper presented at the American Academy of Religion's Western Region Conference, Stanford University, March 26, 1982 Copy online -

Given this wealth of material, it is incomprehensible why these sources are not used widely within the article. I have attempted through one edit to move the article in a direction that is academically rich. Reliance upon encyclopaedists in preference to definitive researchers is perverse, but if that is what the majority of editors are insisting upon then I can see no way forward. I suggest editors consider the above sources and then propose how these are to be used, given that my proposed approach is not acceptable to the majority, some other formulation is clearly required. For detailed criticism of the encyclopaedists with which I concur see -

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Nonsense, most, if not all these sources have been used in this and related articles such as Teachings of Prem Rawat, and Divine Light Mission. If there are specific aspects of these sources that have not been used and that could improve this or related articles, you will need to propose them one at a time. Blanket assertions such as Barret, Hunt, Chryssides, following "Geaves, or making it up as they go along, and "encyclopaedists"(sic) being somehow unreliable, will  not do, sorry. For a list of all sources used in this article, see Prem_Rawat ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To be clear, then, Jossi -- do you accept all of these as reliable sources for this article? There are several I don't see on the /Scholars subpage, e.g. Price, Bjorkvist, Rife, Dupertuis, Haan and Kranenborg.   Can we add them to the scholars page?  I think a consensus set of sources would go a long way toward settling this page down.  Msalt (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is also no need to spam-link to the anti-Rawat sites when the material you refer to is already available in a sandbox here at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars. Any further attempts to spamlink should be considered disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's not consider adding links to talk pages in good faith to be disruptive. If it moves the discussion towards consensus it's helpful. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If the material referred is already available on-wiki, there is no reason to link-spam this page, Will. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The linked page contains commentary that I don't see here. I don't see the harm in linking to it. I don't see any personal attacks on individual WP editors.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * BLP policy is clear = " Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space".Momento (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * NikWright2 just listed a dozen scholarly articles, so what does your comment about "unsourced or poorly sourced" have to do with his list? Msalt (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

We're talking about linking to the anti Rawat websites as in here [], [[] ]] and []. These sites are full of "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material". Just because it links to a page that has "sourced material" from a "reliable scholar" is no excuse. I could set of a web site with 99 pages of "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" and have one page of "Gordon Melton" to link to. Having a few pages of "sourced material" in a sea of "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" doesn't remove the need to follow BLP policy on "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" and "external links".Momento (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please indent your comments properly. Failing to indent is a sign of disruptive editing.  These links go directly to reproductions of scholarly articles (except the third, where your link is mistaken.  I think you may have put HTM instead of HTML.)There is no added material at all. They don't even have links to anything on those pages except a bibliography.  I see nothing unsourced or poorly sourced -- in fact, the only things ON those pages are reliable sources.  You aren't even claiming that these are not reliable sources. It looks like you simply object to any source that is critical of Rawat.  That has no basis in BLP. In any case, why don't we just add the full text of each to the /Scholars sandbox, and then we won't need these links? Msalt (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you direct me to the page that says "Failing to indent is a sign of disruptive editing". The pages linked are part of sites that violate BLP. And, in fact, Galanter and Downton are not critical of Rawat. Why don't you add the full text to the scholars page and that will certainly save us linking to sites that violate BLP.Momento (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Gladly -- [Wikipedia:Tendentious Editing]. "Here are some hints to help you recognise if you or someone else has become a problem editor: ... tendentious editors often do not indent their talk page comments. While threading discussions (by indenting your replies to others' posts) is not strictly required, it is standard practice and highly recommended since it makes discussions easier to follow. Failing to do so may be interpreted as inexperience with Wikipedia conventions at best, and as inconsiderateness or arrogance at worst." Msalt (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've didn't know this.Momento (talk) 06:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It's a good policy.  The whole thing is worth reading. Msalt (talk) 07:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * All relevant issues seem to have been covered by other editors so I will not respond to any of the individual points made above . I do note that Jossi, Momento and Rumiton have approached this yet again in what looks like a "no surrender" mode. Msalt's suggestion that In any case, why don't we just add the full text of each to the /Scholars sandbox, and then we won't need these links? seems eminently sensible. I remain unconvinced that the article can be improved without a major edit to effect essential structural change but I look forward to other editors creating text that introduces a greater breadth of references. Despite claims to the contrary I had, and have, no interest in editwaring. I will not for the present make any edits to the article and I will not comment here until other editors present new text that introduces an increased range of academic references. My draft article remains at  User:Nik Wright2/ Rawat balanced sources for anyone who may find it useful, and at the risk of being accused further of 'spamming' I do believe the criticism at  is relevant. I did consider copying it to my sandbox to reference here, but it is an independent criticism of Wikipedia and surely it is right to acknowledge that.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong discussion
Aside from links and indents, are there any comments on the material Nik posted above - ? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Jossi said it all, we need to look at the individual suggested edits. A problem I have with blanket-accepting the proposed sources is that many of them, particularly the Dutch scholars, are prominent members of Protestant churches, writing for their own congregations in language intended to affirm the Christian world view. It is to be expected that they will find the Sant Mat philosophy offensive and idolatrous. A comparable example might be to quote the opinion of Pope Benedict in an article on Communism, or the opinion of the President of China on the Dalai Lama. They may well make some valid points, but you would expect them to have a biased and unencyclopedic understanding of the subject. I also would like this article to find some stability, and to pay respect, as far as possible, to all those whose lives have been affected by Prem Rawat. Accepting sources like these will only inflame the situation. Rumiton (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have read the first of the sources, Worshiping the Absurd, by Foss and Larkin. Its main thrust is to analyse the state of mind of the followers of Rawat, and how their attachment to him, in the authors' view, solved the psychological dilemma they found themselves in when the sixties' youth movement fizzled out. Some attention is also paid to DLM structures mimicking some of the same structures that the counterculture had judged to be inimical to people's well-being. Apart from some general references to Rawat's contradictory behaviour, held by followers to reflect the contradictory nature of the world in general, I did not really find anything that in my view would make a key contribution to the biographical part of this article. I could imagine the sections "Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji?" and "Social Causality and Truth Within: Grace and Lila" to be used for the criticism sections here and in the articles on DLM and Prem Rawat's teachings, as part of the round-up of published criticism, but with clear attribution (i.e. naming the authors). Any views? Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 14:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Then again, Jayen, the Prem Rawat article had no mention of the fact that Millenium '73 was in many ways a major failure until I added facts from Foss and Larkin piece (since fleshed out with other sources.) So it already has made a major contribution to the biographical part of the article. In fact, excerpts from Foss and Larkin were already on the /Scholars subpage here, though for some reason the material about Millenium '73 was left out.
 * I will fill in that and other gaps there and add other scholarly articles as suggested, as time permits. As I've said, having a common base of high quality sources available to us all will be an excellent starting point for building consensus. Msalt (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Granted. :-) I had not really registered that this information was not in the article, so well done for noticing and adding it. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 01:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Endeavors can only fail by not achieving their goals. Millenium '73 failed to make money, but that was never an expectation. A free-admission program cannot make money. Regarding attendance, I think if Prem Rawat himself said "the goal of this event is to have 100 000 people here", then it could be seen as a failure, as only 20 000 - 35 000 showed up, but I don't think he did that. The expectations of arriving ETs and the levitating stuff are symptomatic of the 70s in America (have we all forgotten how truly weird they were?) and not connected with Prem Rawat's stated aims at all. Rumiton (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Everyone is welcome to their opinions. For the article, we can add the subject's opinion that he was pleased with the event and the press reports that it met the low end of attendance predictions, didn't live up to the earthshattering hype, and left the groups deeply in debt. If there are other opinions in reliable sources we should add those too. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that the "earth-shattering hype" was largely a grassroots phenomenon. Unless a very good source links Prem Rawat with the out-there predictions, they have no place in an article about him, except perhaps tangentially. Rumiton (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We should assume that the subject's spokespersons, including Rennie Davis, were speaking for him. Even if a reporter finds a random follower and asks them for a quote that's still an indication of how the event was perceived by the subject's followers. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Re quoting the spokespersons, I can certainly see that as being a normal assumption, but we have to remember the subject's age and background. When Millenium '73 happened he was still only 15, an adolescent. This is an extraordinary story, and ordinary standards can not be rigidly applied. Here was an Indian boy, still learning English, coming from a traditional Sant family and entering a foreign world, trying to bring the best of his upbringing and understanding with him. I recall there were many adults around who were happy to explain to the world what Prem Rawat meant to say. Some of them were, frankly, unrepentant hippies and drug-crazed lunatics. Comments made by attendees can certainly be mentioned in the article, providing their remarks are in broad agreement with reputable sources. (See preceding sentence.) Rumiton (talk) 11:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * While the story is remarkable Wikipedia has so many extraordinary stories that there's a certain ordinariness to them. In this case, the subject had been declared the "Perfect Master" several years earlier, and just six months later he would be declared an adult and get married. In any case, if we have sources that say his spokesmen weren't speaking for him then we can add that bit. The nature of his following is also interesting though that may be an organizational issue better suited for the DLM article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 12:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No WillBeBack, we can't assume "the subject's spokespersons were speaking for him" all the time. When asked by a reporter at Millennium - Why is there such a great contradiction between what you say about yourself and what your followers say about you? Rawat answered - Well, why don't you do me a favor.. . why don't you go to the devotees and ask their explanation about it?" Momento (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, so then we can use that source to say that reporters questioned the contradictions between what Rawat and his spokesmen were saying. If I've been reading them correctly, it appears that followers, including spokesman Davis, were saying that Rawat was God, while Rawat was saying that he wasn't God. There may have been other contradictions as well. Let's see what the sources say. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hold on, now. Sometimes Goom Rodgie said that he wasn't God, but that his Knowledge was God. The song medley called "Arti" includes the line "Satguru IS eternal Knowledge." Sometimes Goom Rodgie went on for quite a while describing the powers of Guru Maharaj Ji. In 1984 (highly relevant, here) George Orwell defined "doublethink" as:

"'To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.'"


 * In fact, society, in general, regards Prem Rawat (appropriately) as a cult leader. This article does not reflect that fact. Prem Rawat is a controversial figure. This article does not reflect that fact. In fact, if you go here: http://prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/ and browse posts, you can learn quite a lot. The premie axis here would tell you that this is a "hate site." In fact, it's a recovery site for cult casualties. There is actually one ex-premie there who probably hates Prem Rawat. She was so dedicated that she always set a place for him at her table in case he turned up. When she figured out that he was deceiving her, she never recovered. Since premies were told not to tell each other about their own experiences, and since some things were kept secret, we're all in a process of self-discovery there. Wowest (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of "society" has never heard of Prem Rawat, positively or negatively. Prem Rawat didn't write Arti, it is sung by millions in India today, has been for a very long time, and describes the traditional Guru-Shishya relationship which is considered the basis of spiritual progress for Hindus. I believe if you care for the person you describe, you might recommend that she seek professional help. The secrets you describe did not exist. There is no "doublethink." What there is, is a difficulty in putting into words an experience that language did not evolve to describe, especially the English language. Stop ranting. Rumiton (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Reception Section
The reception section was edited to summarize the Randi source as follows: "To James Randi, Rawat was an overweight teenager.[90]"  In my opinion, this is a trivializing and highly distorting bit of synthesis. There is no way you could read Randi's piece -- available in its entirety [here] -- and find that to be a fair summary. Furthermore, it distorts the source in a way that is insulting to Prem Rawat. I propose the following as a better summary:

"To James Randi, Rawat's 'Knowledge' consists of four simple 'sensory illusions.' "

Thoughts? Msalt (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The whole Randi article is an insult. In 1993, a jury found that Randi's claim regarding Eldon Byrd was defamatory. In 1990, Uri Geller sued Randi over statements Randi had made, the judge ruled Geller's favor. No serious encyclopedia or scholar would include any of Randi's comments.Momento (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Randi makes a living out of that kind of stuff... and the weight of his opinion is questionable, in particular as relating to he flippant manner in which he writes about such subjects. If we use that source at all, your proposed wording could go in the article Teachings of Prem Rawat, although we will placing his opinion alongside respected scholar's and I am not so sure that is a good thing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have stated on more than one occasion that I consider Randi to be a less than ideal source, which I would like to see replaced. In the meantime though, I strongly feel that the "overweight teenager" edit was highly distorting as well as derogatory to Prem Rawat.  I welcome anyone who can do the work to find a better summary of the criticism of Rawat, and think it would be a wonderful mark of good faith if someone like Ruminton or Momento did.  In the meantime, though, after a bit of time for more input, I will probably follow Jossi's (sort of) recommendation as incremental progress. At least this version is more substantive. Msalt (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If Randi is a less than ideal source, why don't you demonstrate your good faith and remove him. BLP policy is clear - "Be very firm about the use of high quality references".Momento (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * MSalt, thanks for posting the link to Randi's writing, which I had not read in its entirety before. It is libellous garbage and sensationalist, tabloidal gossip, written contemptuously towards both Prem Rawat and his students. There is my revert for the day. Rumiton (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As for a summary of criticism of Rawat. There are two main criticisms. One is that his teachings are simplistic and lacking in "intellectual content". Scholars who make this criticism are demonstrating an abysmal ignorance of Rawat's roots. Most scholars claim Rawat's teaching come from the Sant school in India and Sants "dismiss all religious ritual and dogma and instead emphasize the possibility of a direct experience of God, whom they claim "dwells in the heart". They express their teaching in vernacular verse, addressing themselves to the common folk in oral style. They referred to the "Divine Name" as having saving power, and dismissed the religious rituals as having no value".  Criticizing Rawat for teaching a "direct subjective" experience instead of a "dogma", is like Christians criticizing Muslims for not eating pork.  The second criticism is Rawat leads a "sumptuous lifestyle". This criticism is usually made by Christian scholars who are woefully ignorant of the guru/disciple role and their own Christian teachings. The same criticism was made about Jesus when Mary Magdalen was washing his feet with expensive oil, Jesus replied "the poor will be with you always, but I won't".Momento (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and remember who was that critic? Judas Iscariot, of course, of all people...--Rainer P. (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I added more highly reliable sources, as requested, and a couple of important details about the Millenium '73 event. I am also concerned that the long paragraph about whether Rawat considered himself divine or not disrupts this narrative. I am moving it to the reception section. Msalt (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Reception section is now highly unbalanced. On one side there are quantities, mere numbers, but criticism is elaborated qualitatively. This may be a consequence of the observation that the many content students are not as vociferous as the few detractors, who have an axe to grind. But it gives a distorted overall picture, and there will never be consensus about that. Thoughts?--Rainer P. (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The section is pretty short and the critical material appears limited to a short paragraph that mostly deals with Mischler. Since Mischler's involvement and comments were in the 1970s, it would make sense to deal with them chronologically. I think we can expand the coverage of Mischler slightly to actually describe his criticisms neutrally. The material in that section should be overviews of the person. The movement is covered in the DLM/EV/TPRF articles, so detailed membership numbers should be in those articles along with any criticism or praise directed at them. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Will. Reception is not a Criticism section, and I prefer having contrasting views presented throughout the article, not lumped into one section anyway.  I certainly don't agree with Rainer P. that it is imbalanced against Rawat.  And I think we CAN reach consensus, as we have been steadily doing to great effect just lately.  I have a concern that the quote about Mishler's criticism having no effect is an example of WP:SYN synthesis, finding a source to make an argument.  It is presented as a refutation of Mishler that his criticism didn't hurt the movement. By the way, Momento,
 * I have some material in Peace is Possible about Mishler.Momento (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Peace is Possible is not a reliable source and by consensus is being used only for non-controversial points. I kinda doubt that anything about Mishler will fall into that category.  We have set a very high standard for sources on this page, and should be consistent. Msalt (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, Msalt, the reception paragraph has in fact changed now, with Randi and the like gone, and it does not look so imbalanced any more. But then it does not have much left, or never had, that might legitimately be called "Reception". It sounds more like "Numbers", and this unwieldy Mishler bit should bit dumped somewhere else. I mean, at least Randi somehow has an independent notability of his own, while Mishler (and some vocal others) derive a certain dubious notability exclusively from their former connection to Rawat, and therefore should not be valued too high as a source. And again, you must not balance quantities (like numbers) against qualities (like judgement). The reception section should IMO reflect the characteristics of overall reactions to Rawat in a neutral way, considering developments over time as well as the polarity and the ratio of students vs. detractors, as well as the conspicuous difference between populistic media reactions and scientific appraisal. Now that would be interesting. Still not agree?--Rainer P. (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Peace Bomb, do we have a transcript?
I'm hesitant to go ahead and assume that the text of "The Peace Bomb" as shown at prem-rawat-bio.org and at ex-premie.org is correct, do we have another source for the full transcript of this speech, or reason to believe these sources are not 100% accurate on this particular issue? Maelefique (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Whereas I accept that within the strict rules Wikipedia enforces for BLPs, my site, ex-premie.org, may not be used as a source, the information on the site is accurate, and any transcripts of Rawat's speeches are taken word for word from Elan Vital/Divine Light Mission publications. The content may not be welcome to Jossi, but since taking over the site in 2001, I have included on the home page a request for Elan Vital or Rawat (or anyone else) to correct any inaccuracies, and to date the only contact I have had from Elan Vital is an unsuccessful claim for copyright infringement.  In that claim, the page with the Peace Bomb address was included in the list of pages in Elan Vital's complaint.  --John Brauns (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That satsang was given in Hindi at India Gate, and all what is available is some translations that have been published in the past. I will check if I can find any sources on the subject. As for the site you are linking to, please don't. That site contains numerous BLP violations and commentary that is most unwelcome. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The only mention I found (but I am sure must be others as well, I think from Hummel) is this:
 * ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hummel only quotes some brief phrases. I can translate them if you like. Rumiton (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Appears our own Wikiquote has some (translated!) excerpts too, here: Wikiquote:Prem Rawat --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Only use quotes by Rawat that appear in scholarly articles please to avoid yet another quote war. Kranenborg quoted some of the Peace Bomb satsang. Andries (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

How wrong?
From:Momento (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC) (above)

'''"Head of Elan Vital". Wrong.''' O.K. -- HOW wrong? He certainly looks like it. It's named for him.

'''"began Divine Light Mission in the 1970s when he was 13 years old". Wrong.''' Once again, HOW wrong? Divine Light Mission USA was started then, wasn't it? Or, did Shri Hans ever come to the U.S. and start it?

"Since 1990, Rawat has reworked his image." Looks pretty true from here...

'''"Divine Light Mission has been replaced by the charitable organization Elan Vital". Wrong. ''' That's how it looks to most people. Exactly how wrong is it? It's the new tax-exempt organization that pays for Prem Rawat's airplane, isn't it? Same as the old organization?

"And pretty much all the rest is ex-devotee's opinion." True -- but that's the purpose of the inclusion, isn't it? This article, as a whole, reads like an ad (or more like an infomercial) for a meditation course. There are no balancing opinions, and there are plenty of contrary opinions to go around. Compare it with the article on J. Krishnamurti. As we all (should) know, Krishnamurti was originally presented by Western devotees as some kind of Buddha. According to the article, he rejected that mantle in his 30's, right? In the interpretation of events most favorable to Prem Rawat, he did the same thing, and at a somewhat younger age, but without taking responsibility for past representations of him. As we all know (or should know), in the field of sociology of religion, many of the "scholars" are compromised as a result of money and other gifts they accepted from the cults they purport to be studying. So, for the most part, their opinions are more cult propaganda.

What's needed is a balancing opinion, but balancing opinions are rejected by the premies present because the critics are former premies or ministers of religion or scholars at religious institutions, as far as I can see. On Teaching of Prem Rawat, we just saw quotations from two books combined into one sentence attributed to the less-academic book, didn't we? That isn't balance. Wowest (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

2000s Section
The paragraph about the Prem Rawat Foundation is, in my opinion, too long. It currently reads: In 2001, The Prem Rawat Foundation (TPRF) was founded as a Public Charitable Organization, largely for the production and distribution of materials promoting Rawat's message. TPRF also funds worldwide humanitarian efforts, providing food, water and medical help to war-torn and impoverished areas. In 2007 after an evaluation by the Better Business Bureau, TPRF became a Recommended Charity of the Wise Giving Alliance.[79][80] I recommend cutting the final sentence about certification by the Wise Giving Alliance. This detail is fine in the article about TPRF but too much detail for this article. Msalt (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the Prem Rawat article we'd rather concentrate on the article subject's relation to that organisation, e.g.: was Rawat a founding member? Has he ever commented on the organisation, or defined what it means to him? etc. References on this can come from primary sources (if reliable, not unduly self-serving etc), but preferably secondary sources: do we have any?
 * Note that there's something about the organisation in the "Reception" section: as the sentence there on TPRF is only about "we're not able to get info on the reception of Prem Rawat via that organisation", that sentence can be removed there as far as I'm concerned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a link in the Web archive that may be useful, as it explains this issue: . I would argue that saying that a foundation that carries the subject's name, and the fact that the P. Rawat promotes and spearheads humanitarian activities of the foundation, cannot be included in this article, is absurd. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the first of the links suggested by Jossi ( http://web.archive.org/web/20030618195430/www.tprf.org/pr_letter.htm ), we could write something like "Rawat sees TPRF as an instrument to propagate his message of peace" with a reference to that source, but then I'm reluctant to do sourcing to primary sources that are no longer available except through web archive. For me (but I'm happy to hear others' opinions) that's just below what we can do notability-wise. Do we have any other repository (book, non-archive webpage, press report,...) that contains this info?
 * The second link does not offer the kind of info I suggested any more (meaning: insight of how Prem Rawat sees and/or relates to TPRF), at least I didn't find any, and even if on that page, seems rather like a page that rotates messages, not knowing whether a report found there would still be available in the foreseeable future). --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The second link includes links to reports of appearances of Prem Rawat at events organized by the foundation in partnerships with NGOs, and the role of P Rawat on some of the major initiatives. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but as I said (1) this doesn't explain how Rawat relates to TPRF; (2) we're not sure if such reports would be still reachable via the site in a few months. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But maybe I'm not looking at the right ones of these reports, if you feel like you can of course propose a text for the article, and how you would present its reference(s). --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't want to be misunderstood here. I am certainly NOT proposing that we remove all reference to TPRF; all I'm proposing to do is to remove the third sentence about its certification, which I think is more appropriate in the article on the Foundation. Now that it's pointed out to me, I think the sentence in the lede about the foundation should be moved out of there and merged in with the paragraph on it in the 2000s Section.  Fair enough? Msalt (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be OK. What we need is a short summary of what the Foundation is and does. As for the lead, I think it is important, albeit a recent development. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I will remove just that third sentence in the 2000s section, and will leave the sentence in the lede pending further discussion. Do any other editors have thoughts on the matter? Msalt (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to get the full context, the intro also contains this sentence:
 * In 2001 The Prem Rawat Foundation was established to contribute to global humanitarian efforts and to promote his message, which is now available throughout the world via print, TV, cable and satellite.
 * Since we're talking about the TPRF here, I'll note that the article on it has no secondary sources to establish the foundation's notability. Likewise the Divine United Organization. Those articles may be deleted unless we can find some 3rd-party sources. If so the sourced content would probably be merged to the EV and DLM articles.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry? Why would you delete The Prem Rawat Foundation article exactly? There are sources provided. See also WP:COMPANY. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a discussion for another page - I was just alerting folks, here. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See my comment above. The Foundation has been referred in scholarly sources, as well as in secondary sources such as the Red Cross, and Rotary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's stick to discussing this article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ??? You started the discussion here, Will, not me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It was just a side announcement. Let's not get distracted. This thread concerns the TPRF material in this article. Since we have (at the moment) an article about the organization we don't need to give a lot of details about it here. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * One thing readers of this article and neutral editors may not know is that unusually for charitable foundations bearing the name of wealthy living people, the Prem Rawat Foundation does not appear to receive any endowment from its founder. The foundation's website says it is funded from those who appreciate Rawat's message, and from the sale of materials.  It goes out of its way to stress that Rawat receives nothing from the foundation (cf. the Gates foundation).  Is this worth including in the article so that readers don't get the wrong impression? --John Brauns (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If the subject didn't fund the organization, and doesn't serve on its board, then the foundation appears to be more like a tribute to him than an activity of his. If we can find any sources which describe his relationship to the foundation, or his activities on its behalf, then that would help make the connection. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If he's not directly involved, then I would suggest that we add the phrase "was established in his honor". I would also be much more skeptical of including the sentence about the foundation in the lede of the article about Rawat.  At that point, the 2000s Section would probably cover it.  I had the impression that this was one of his main personal activities in recent years. Msalt (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Re. "was established in his honor" - TPRF appears to be a "Reception" topic after all, but differently from what is about it in the "Reception" section currently... --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The foundation stated purpose as described in the BBB Wise Giving Alliance Charity Report says of the foundation's charter: Stated Purpose:  "to promote and disseminate to the general public the speeches, writings, music, art and public forums of Prem Rawat;...to support, fund, and promote humanitarian initiatives for the relief of physical hunger and thirst through practical and tangible means; and to provide relief to natural disaster victims worldwide". I would argue that to do that (e.g. disseminate to the general public the speeches, writings, music, art and public forums of Prem Rawat) they must have ownership and assignment of ownership of the intellectual property related to these, meaning that they must have the agreement of P Rawat to carry the foundations' stated purpose. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good argument, but like many good arguments it's original research. The subject may have assigned his copyrights to the group. Or the foundation may be buying his works. Without a source saying so we don't know. It's certainly possible that he's agreed to be honored, in the same way that one agrees to receive an honorary degree. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see that it's original research; it's an argument, in the same way that the claim that the foundation was set up in his honour is an argument. In the latter case, it is argument based on speculation. There is certainly no evidence that it was set up in his honour. Rather, the stated aim of the foundation is to support the work of P.Rawat. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, then this should be the status quo. Armeisen (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyway, "they must have ownership and assignment of ownership of the intellectual property related to these" is NOT implied by TPRF's stated purposes. Not any more than that a publicity agent necesserily owns intellectual rights of the artist (firm,...) he promotes. If I would have a bookshop and sell books, and above that, promote the books I sell, and disseminate flyers on the books I've got on offer, none of this implies I would own IP of anything I sell, promote, disseminate, etc... --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jossi, that was the kind of info I was looking for (as primary source material that is eligible for sourcing in the article). However, the link doesn't provide much info on Rawat's involvement in the organisation (or is he one of the four unmentioned members of the board? - is that "public knowledge", and if so, is there a source for it?) - lacking much involvement of Rawat himself, I think Msalt has a point that the Prem Rawat article shouldn't elaborate too much on TPRF (i.e., mention it but thus far this doesn't appear a key aspect of Rawat's bio - a "Reception" topic and that's about it). --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be any big secret about TPRF's board -- I found it in one click, starting from tprf.org (click Foundation) [] Rawat is not on it. Msalt (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * see insert above Francis Armeisen (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is a secondary source (my highlight): . Italian: Un assegno di 150.000 dollari e' stato donato da Prem Rawat (fondatore della omonima Fondazione) a Francesco Strippoli, consigliere del direttore esecutivo del Programma alimentare mondiale, come sostegno all'impegno del Pam nel fornire assistenza alimentare alle persone colpite dallo tsunami in Indonesia. Which clearly states that Prem Rawat is the founder of the foundation of the same name. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks, but this still leaves the question: was he a/the founder of TPRF or not? The Italian article seems to suggest he is "fondatore della omonima Fondazione" (eng. "founder of the Foundation named after him"). Isn't there a (public) charter or whatever the official document is named that lists the founder(s) of TPRF? (I mean, something like listing five names for the WMF, which makes among others J. Wales a "founder" of the WMF) --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This indentation stuff is getting cumbersome to read so I'm not going to indent on this one to follow the conversation. My apologies if it seems disruptive to anyone.  Just becasue the foundation is named after him doesn't mean he founded it.  If Prem Rawat isn't named on The Prem Rawat Foundation (TPRF) incorporation documents in California, doesn't sit on the board of directors, didn't fund the foundation at its inception in the state of California, then he's not the founder.  It's as simple as black and white and it doesn't matter what somebody in another country says, or even it it says that on TPRF, because if its not true, then TPRF is misleading the public.  A good example of this is the Dalai Lama Foundation which was founded with his endorsement and guidance and in his name, but isn't attached to him in any other way.  Here's the webpage about that:  Dalai Lama Foundation.  I see no similar page on TPRF explaining Rawat's role in that foundation as with the Dalai Lama.  See the article on the current Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama  under the "social stances" section where his association with that foundation is also very well explained with sources. I think for that reason it's questionable whether or not TPRF should even be mentioned or have its own article if it's only connection to Rawat is that its named after him.  Sylviecyn (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolute nonsense. The foundation was founded by Prem Rawat, and he is referred as such by independent sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree, Francis. The original discussion of the foundation is three sentences long. That is hardly excessive. I don't know where one finds articles of association in the U.S., but they would tell what part Maharaji played. Certainly the website lists the members of the board, but I am not sure that that reference has credibility in Wikipedia; certainly, I would not be arguing for it if there was disagreement. But if there are public documents that attest that the purpose of the foundation is to promote the humanitarian and other work of P. Rawat, then references to the foundation in this article are valid. If the foundation is a significant, if not the primary, vehicle for his work, then it's mention here is perfectly valid. Armeisen (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See below, I agree with what's currently in the 2000s section. But somehow we started discussing what is in the Lead section and in the Reception section about TPRF too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone here is suggesting that we not mention the foundation in this article. I think the only issues are 1) does a sentence about the foundation belong in the lede of the article, when the extent of his personal involvement is not clear, and 2) whether the phrase "in his honor" should be added to "was established".  Possibly there may be a third issue about whether he grants TPRF free use of his writings or licenses them for some kind of royalty.  That was hinted at in the conversation.  At this point, the evidence seems a bit vague on all 3 points. Msalt (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think what we say in the article about TPRF is fine now, not over-long, and relevant; relevant because it's the distributor of his works. We don't say anything that we don't know is verifiable. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you think it belongs in the lede, too? Msalt (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Jayen. I might recast what is in the Reception section about TPRF though, with what I learned here (depends on whether Rawat is "founder" or TPRF was founded in his honour). --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Foundation, which he founded, provides nutritious food and clean water…etc Rumiton (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think all the numbers in Reception really belong to the corresponding articles about the movement(s), so to that extent I also feel TPRF is out of place there (it does not represent Elan Vital, but Rawat, if I understand correctly). Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 00:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's okay in the lede. Definitely relevant as the distributor of his works; mentioning the charity work is perhaps less essential in the lede, but okay by me too. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Jayen is correct here. Having the item in the Reception section is not really appropriate. The sentence The Prem Rawat Foundation, which is not a church or religion-related organisation, does not report on adherents or followers, but publishes annual reports regarding its finances and activities, available through its website.[95] is written in a way that suggests that it is in some way remiss for not reporting on its followers, when it was never set up, as the previous phrase states, as an organisation which would have adherents or followers. There's nothing to follow. It could be replaced with The Prem Rawat Foundation publishes annual reports regarding its finances and activities, available through its website. If the sentence is to remain in this section, then I propose it be changed.

By the way, I was a bit intrigued by the use of the word lede here. It may be a Wikipedia thing, but it is not a word in Webster's Collegiate dictionary, nor the Australian standard Macquarie. I don't know what it means. Armeisen (talk) 01:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good argument, Amersein. Lede = WP:LEAD ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Lead section, don't know whether "lede" is newspeak or something, I always say "lead section". --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Newspeak indeed ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a journo word. Pronounced "lid". Now you have it all. Rumiton (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Didn't mean to confuse anyone.  Just thought that was the appropriate word.  "Lead" by itself can be to lead someone, its past tense, a heavy toxic metal, or an electrical wire.  Lede only means one thing - the first paragraph of an article.Msalt (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm not crazy, it's a valid Wikipedia Word. WP:LEAD says "The lead section, lead, lede, or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the first heading." Msalt (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Introduced somewhat more than a year ago --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

All of the statements above are validated here:

http://www.uark.edu/~kshurlds/FOJ/HW2.html

AND it isn't in the Merriam Webster Collegiate. Wowest (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I found a balancing R/S reference from the 2000's, so I tossed it in. Otherwise, this thing still reads like an advertisement for a meditation course. Wowest (talk) 07:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Francis. I thought that section was getting a bit too long, and that seemed like a logical place to break it into pieces small enough to edit. Wowest (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wowest, I gotta admire your gall. I just noticed on History that you tried to insert a bogus quote from a bogus premie (JaiSatChitAnand) into the article ("We all got a past, man.") Made me laugh after a rough work day, whether you intended to or not. Thanks anyway. Rumiton (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a real quote, Rumiton, and obviously a real premie, although he clearly conned the shorts off of the reporter. Wowest (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Curious, though, Rumiton. Something is wrong with the "premie's" name, and, of course, we took opposing sides on the source of that. you do strike me as the most-nearly-honest current premie on this page, or at least you present yourself that way. Wowest (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Coming of age section
This part of the article now reads like something an analyst jotted down while a schizophrenic patient "expressed". Very stream of consciousness. Anyone mind if I try to rearrange the ideas for clarity and continuity? You may, of course, scrutinise my efforts with hawklike intensity. Rumiton (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I would mind, especially if you take a ranting reads like something an analyst jotted down while a schizophrenic patient "expressed", as point of departure. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a rant, Francis, just my feeble attempt at humor. Should have known better, I suppose. But read it anew for yourself. The ideas do not follow each other in any logical order. I think they could, and it would much improve the article. Rumiton (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Chronological order is OK with me. Then only the end of the second paragraph is not following the logic of the order. There are two Downton phrases I'm not sure about whether they rather belong to 1974 (immediately after the rupture with his mother), or 1979 (publication date of Downton's book). These phrases are:
 * "Most of the mahatmas either returned to India or were dismissed" - currently in first paragraph (1974), and
 * "Staff at the Denver headquarters were reduced from 250 to 80" - currently in last paragraph (1979).
 * I'd appreciate page number for both claims, that is, where in the book does this come from? In the narration of which period? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, note that above and  are most of the time about the second paragraph of the "Coming of age" section. And the section was rewritten as a result of that. Don't want you to inadvertently ignore ongoing discussion on the topic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the flow has gone. Partly because the paragraph on the house spans an eight-year period. Always difficult to decide whether to group things by topic or report everything strictly chronologically. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 15:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the distrust floating around this page, let's start with drafts on this Talk page or a sandbox for any major rewrites of sections, OK? Jossi suggested this for the divinity subject (and of course Jayen466 is working on that), and I think it's a good way to move forward.  Msalt (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Blind revert
I'd hope that editors of this article could be more careful than this edit. While the editor says she is changing one item, in fact she's reverting a series of edits including those that she presumably doesn't object to, or at least isn't giving an explanation for reverting. That type of activity is unhelpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that this blind revert was not an accident, but rather a misleading edit summary. When I asked her on her Talk page to self-revert the mass reversion and focus on individual edits, she replied "I disagree with your edits. It's that simple."  [] Also, as I noted in the  Teachings section of this page, she earlier today reverted the POV tag -- the subject of an earlier edit war -- without talk page discussion or even an edit summary. [] Msalt (talk) 06:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Since editor Janice Rowe has not justified her removal of the NPOV tag, and didn't even acknowledge what she was doing in her edit summary, I am reverting that removal. Whether the tag belongs her or not, this is not the way to remove it. I don't have a strong opinion either way, but the tag clearly says "Do not remove unless the dispute has been resolved", and I think it's safe to say that the dispute over this article's POV has not been resolved. Msalt (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is subject to special probation. If the editor refuses to explain the edit then it may be time to invoke it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If we want to avoid edit wars, we should encourage users to do one a edit at a time, wait to see if there are objections and then do the next edit. Making multiple edits in rapid succession, may also be not helpful. Reverts of such edits are a way to express disagreement, and if done within 1RR, it may be a valid behavior in that context. Let's help each other, and go slow for a change. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi, that's not an appropriate method of editing. By making discrete edits Msalt made it easy for any to object to or even revert a single edit. Reverting a whole series of edits just because an editor disagrees with one is not a valid form of expressing disagreement. You make it sound as if blind reverting is a good thing, while everything in WP says that even one revert of good faith editing is not helpful. Deleting an NPOV tag without any discussion or edit summary, as Janice Rowe has just done, is not a helpful way to edit a contentious article either. I won't report Janice Rowe for this, but if the behavior repeats then it'll be necessary to invoke the probation rules. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me express a concern here (which was expressed as well by others at WP:AN). One of the pitfalls of 1RR probation is that unless we are careful, we will be applying double standards: A person making an edit, could be as tendentious as a person reverting that edit. 1RR is there to protect the process by allowing the expression of disagreement by issuing a revert, while disallowing an escalating edit war. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's be clear here, Jossi. Do you consider my edits tendentious?  You certainly imply so in defending Janice Rowe.  I have discussed these edits on Talk and frequently shaped them to your own personal suggestions.  Please explain why a single edit reverting several, with a misleading edit summary and refusal to discuss on Talk (still), would ever be valid. Why not revert each individual edit? Msalt (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I am not implying that, Msalt. All I am saying is that rapid-fire editing is not conducive to consensus building, and in an article under 1RR probation, a very bad idea. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There's nothing in the probation terms that say editors have to make tiny edits and then wait for approval before amking another tiny edit. The disruption here is from an editor who blindly reverted edits that she didn't even disapprove of, that she didn't describe or explain, and that she won't discuss. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, good, thanks Jossi. I have been frustrated by rapid-fire edits by other editors before, so that makes sense.  I will continue to address each of those edits here in Talk, and to move more deliberately.  However, I do not think any of that justifies Janice Rowe's edit warring or refusal to discuss.  I resisted the temptation to blind revert Momento's many rapid fire edits. Msalt (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, you wrote yesterday that rapid-fire editing "is not conducive to consensus building, and in an article under 1RR probation, a very bad idea" and that wholesale reverts of such edits may be a valid way to express disagreement. Does your statement apply to Momento? S/he just made 7 undiscussed edits in a very short period of time. Msalt (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the problem with adding context and improving logic and readability? I added "taught to him by his guru" to the sentence on techniques, moved the criticism of teaching to the teaching section, added a Wikilink for Collier and removed a student newspaper as a source. Four actual edits in an hour. Jayen466 made 4 edits in 20 minutes without complaint. I'm getting the impression you are singling me out for criticism. The other day you told me "Please indent your comments properly. Failing to indent is a sign of disruptive editing" and yet you've done exactly the same above.Momento (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? Jayen466 is uniformly measured, cooperative and working toward consensus.  If you edited that way, I would invite you to make edits the way I recently invited Jayen. You made 3 edits between 7:10 and 7:13, and another 3 between 6:39 and 6:43.  That's 6 in 7 minutes, only 1 minor.  As for indenting, that's to reply to someone.  I undented because I was starting a new thread, not replying to anyone.  Here, replying to you, I indented and added an extra one so as not to obscure Will Beback's edit. See the difference? Msalt (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that making small, well-identified edits is a problem. What concerns me more are edits that involve more than one issue, or are poorly-labelled. This pair of edits is an example: . It would have been much better to have moved the material, and then made the content changes rather than doing so in one edit which makes it had to distinguish the differences. I don't see how changing "banal" to "lacking in intellectual content", improves readability. I urge editors to make smaller edits.
 * Once again you have wrongly accused me. I didn't do anything to "banal". I urge you to be more careful..Momento (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's just my point - it's hard to follow what you've done when you simultaneously move a section and edit it. Now that you mention it, I see you've moved the word down and attributed it: "Kent described a Rawat talk as banal." Unfortunately, readers will be wondering who "Kent" is. Since Kent is not a household name it's not helpful to attribute a criticims to a mysterious, one-named person. Either we should introduce him with a full name and some info (Stephen A. Kent is notable enough for an article) or just say "one writer" has called the subject "banal". ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As for the revert, why was properly soourced material removed? BLP doesn't prohibit the use of student newspapers, and the newspaper of a major university may be considered as reliable. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * BLP says "Be very firm about the use of high quality references". A student newspaper isn't a high quality reference.Momento (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "A student newspaper isn't a high quality reference." -- FALSE! 

There was an error in the citation, however, which I'll fix when I put it back.

The Daily Californian is an independent, student-run newspaper published by the Independent Berkeley Students Publishing Company, Inc. The newspaper serves the UC Berkeley campus and its surrounding community, publishing Monday through Friday during the academic year and twice a week during the summer. Established in 1871, The Daily Californian is one of the oldest newspapers on the West Coast and one of the oldest college newspapers in the country. Daily Cal staffers have the unique opportunity of gaining daily metro news experience in the lively city of Berkeley. The newspaper has consistently covered the city and its institutions since its establishment, allowing student journalists to report on campus as well as city news. The Daily Cal also operates Best of Berkeley, a city guide and local arts Web site for the city of Berkeley.

One of the few campus newspapers in the country that is completely independent from the university it covers, the Daily Cal supports itself entirely from advertising revenue and does not receive equipment resources or any form of financial support from the university or the Associated Students of the University of California. The only independent campus newspaper in the UC system, the Daily Cal is run entirely by current or recently-graduated UC Berkeley students, and the majority of the business division of the newspaper is student-operated as well.

The Daily Cal earned its independence in 1971 and publishes with the name, The Daily Californian, pursuant of a licensing agreement with the UC Board of Regents. The move towards independence was initiated after the university administration attempted to fire three editors because of a controversial editorial regarding People's Park, a university-owned lot in the Southside neighborhood of Berkeley that became an unplanned park for locals.

So, there you have it! It gained its independence as a result of People's Park, arguably the most holy and significant event in human history (It sure wasn't Millennium '73)! Wowest (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. The The Daily Californian has won numerous awards, and the reportere of this specific article has gone on to become a staff reporter for the L.A. Times. This newspaper appears to be a "high quality reference", especially compared to the one-book Mighty River Press. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a poorly written, poorly researched, beat up that doesn't even attempt to hide its bias.Momento (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Those sound like opinions. What assertions in the article are objectively incorrect? Are sources unreliable when we disagree with their reporting? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Head of Elan Vital". Wrong. "began Divine Light Mission in the 1970s when he was 13 years old". Wrong. "Since 1990, Rawat has reworked his image. Divine Light Mission has been replaced by the charitable organization Elan Vital". Wrong. And pretty much all the rest is ex-devotee's opinion.Momento (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, at the time there wasn't a Wikipedia article on Prem Rawat yet, leave alone a reliable one. ;) --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And there never will be a reliable one if we rely on tabloids.Momento (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this ad-hoc quote from the students' newspaper was out of place. The event was not notable, except to the university where Rawat spoke, and neither was the quoted person "Jai Satchianand". Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 14:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the text added was the best use of that source. However there are very few reports on the subject during the past 20 years. While the event itself is non-notable, it does give a window into current thinking by and about the subject. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 15:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 15:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't "give a window into current thinking by and about the subject" in any shape or form. The headline says it all "Campus Speaker Criticized by Ex-Devotees".It only presents the view of Joe Whalen, a prominent ex-premie. And where is the  "current thinking by the subject"? It's getting to the point when we may have to review to current practice of taking newspaper articles that suit a POV and giving them undue weight.Momento (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

A student newspaper a RS? You have got to be kidding. There was another article on next day:. Should we use this to assert that "Rawat emphasize the importance of recognizing one's innate desire to be happy."? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Student newspapers should not be either refused blindly as sources or accepted blindly. Jossi, you yourself have many times stressed the importance of context in judging sources, and you are correct.  In this case, an award-winning, independent college newspaper and a reporter who went on to be an LA Times reporter, I think it is prima facie a very reliable source.  I haven't looked at the particular article though.
 * Scholars and the best newspapers in world can have bad days or stretches (eg Judith Miller's reporting on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq for the New York Times). Those flaws make her articles unreliable, but not the newspaper.  Hunter Thompson is hardly a reliable source, but "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail" is taught at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, a classic in the history of journalism.  Etc.  Msalt (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Since there are three substantial errors in the article, we can conclude the reporter is unreliable. Since the reporter didn't give EV right of reply, we can conclude the reporter is biased. Since the reporter now works for the LA Times, we can conclude they are unlikely to improve.Momento (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I do think we are reaching the limits of newspaper journalism here. This is where accuracy starts to get flaky – I was looking at Collier's (an ex-premie's) book just now, following Pat's link, and in one place she says, And, as I noticed on Soul Rush, anytime the premies started to sound dumb or crazy, on went the TV lights, to the pad went the pencils. No journalist could either resist or make sense of this odd story of foolish utopians whose leader appeared to be nothing more than a fat Indian kid in a Rolls. "And didn't he have an ulcer?" was one reporter's last question to me at the end of the third evening. One news story caused me great personal embarrassment. It was written by the woman from the Village Voice who had seemed so sweet on Soul Rush. The things I had told her, hoping to explain how fanaticism and genuine spirituality coexisted in our movement, were misquoted. Other remarks, which I had made jokingly and in high spirits, she presented as my serious beliefs. I am afraid this is all too true, and typical of newspaper journalism. Even Wowest, who introduced the section IIRC, opined on this page that the Premie "clearly conned the shorts off of the reporter". What is to be gained by inserting something like this as an earnest, bona fide reflection of R. teaching? And we might as well quote the following day's article then that Jossi located, which for the most part sounds like the event was a full success ... Even serious scholars are contradicting each other on aspects of this subject, to the point of stupefaction. If we add to that the throwaway lines of journalists who have done an afternoon's research, and want to score an easy shot rather than to increase understanding, then I do fear we are heading for a morass. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 21:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayen, if I knew how to do it I would give you half a barn star.Momento (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's the thought that counts. :-) Cheers, Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 16:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no particular desire to see this particular student newspaper story in this article, but I do object to the argument that student newspapers per se are unreliable, and the Daily Californian is one of the best. Perhaps we should talk about sources generally.  Momento, Rumiton and Jossi have been very strict about sources that ever critique Rawat, while not holding other sources to the same standards, in my opinion.  (It's likely that Momento would immediately remove any source like "Peace is Possible" or "All Gods Children" claiming BLP if they were used to critique Rawat.)  Under those circumstances, I'm not inclined to let stand a blanket denunciation of any type of potentially reliable source. Msalt (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Msalt, surely it's clear to you that DC article was very unprofessional. It was sensationalist and biased. But more importantly the DC had two articles on Rawat in two days, one was critical and inserted into the article, the other was more positive and ignored. I don't believe either are suitable for a BLP and certainly not one without the other. I would object if someone had inserted the second article as "In 2003 Rawat was greeted with a standing ovation and loud cheers at UC Berkeley". Cherry picking quotes to suit a POV is not acceptable, positive or negative, and should be challenged.Momento (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)