Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 35

Arbitration underway
The request for arbitration was accepted:

--John Vandenberg (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

comment here 147.114.226.172 (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Protected?
I understand, the article is protected from editing (at least I cannot edit it), but there is no tag. Please some of admins, place the protection tag. Mukadderat (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

SECOND REqUEST
PLEASE EXPLAIN why the article is NOT tagged as "Protected"? Mukadderat (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * user:Keilana placed the protection, so she'd be the one to ask why a tag wasn't added at the same time. Probably just an oversight. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Mergefrom Criticism of Prem Rawat
I've posted a merge request on Criticism of Prem Rawat. I propose that we merge that article into this one because they have the same basic topic and because there is sufficient room in this article to handle all significant viewpoints that can be reliably sourced. If material needs to be spun off to maintain a reasonable size then we can find other material to move out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you intending that all the material in "Criticism of..." comes here? Because some of that material is inappropriate, i.e. links to ex-premie.Momento (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should continue to limit the external links on this article to the subject's one and only personal site. The other material in that article doesn't seem problematic though redundant material should be trimmed once it's here, as usual with merges. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I oppose a blanket merge, for several reasons: (a) Many of the sources and material is already in this and other related articles; (b) some material is not properly sourced; (c) Some of the material is not criticism per se nd needs to be evaluated in the context of other similar material (i.e. it is redundant or not, does add value or not, etc.) My proposal is to take each one of the sentences in that old article (there is one per source) and discuss one at the time, find consensus and then add. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Jossi.Momento (talk) 05:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Momemtno, you say in your evidence that you don't oppose expanding the article to include criticism. Please point to the material in the "criticism" article that you don't want merged here. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are about 65 sentences. It would take a couple of months to move the material in. It would be more expeditious to first go over the objectionable material you list above. Can you point to which material is redundant, and which is improperly sourced? That would be faster. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Jossi has repeatedly argued for adding material point by point, and Momento agrees. The problem is that Momento, Rumiton, Janice Rowe and often Jossi himself fiercely fight every addition that does not promote their shared POV, through means ranging from tendentious arguments on Talk to flat-out edit warring.  There have been literally THOUSANDS of talk edits on this page in 3 months of this year.  We have no way of knowing whether this is a deliberate attempt to prevent progress, but we do know that is simply does not work.
 * In contrast, look at Divine Light Mission, where I made a major, bold edit with all good faith, with advanced notice to those involved, and I avoided contentious edits. In my humble opinion, the article was drastically improved, and even Jossi and Momento conceded progress.  So I encourage bolder actions -- with good faith and notice -- as the most effective way to move forward.  Perhaps a sandbox would be a good idea. Msalt (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 *  We have no way of knowing whether this is a deliberate attempt to prevent progress, but we do know that is simply does not work. I would really appreciate it if you avoid using the royal "we". Speak for yourself, if you just could. WP:BOLD is the last thing to consider given the circumstances. Once the ArnCom case closes, any remedies and restrictions imposed will hopefully provide the framework for an orderly debate and editing of this and related articles. The sooner you, I, and others acknowledge that there will be consequences for any type of disruption, the better the chances to stay unharmed and the better the chances for this article to be one that, maybe will not be the one that any one of us would write on his/her own, but nonetheless an article that you, I and others can live with, and maybe be proud of it as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You wrote "The sooner you, I, and others acknowledge that there will be consequences for any type of disruption, the better the chances to stay unharmed..." What do you mean by that? To some ears, it might sound threatening.  Msalt (talk) 08:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi, can you please point to the poorly sourced and redunadnt material that you don't want merged to this article? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the "Criticism" in the "Criticism of ..."article is already covered in this article.
 * This para from the Coming of Age section - "In the mid-1970s several ex-members became vocal critics of Rawat's movement, including Robert Mishler, the former president of DLM.[58][59] A number of these critics made the standard anti cult charges of brainwashing and mind control" - adequately covers the "Criticism by former members" section.
 * This sentence from the Coming of Age -  "Rawat had by then become financially independent as a result of contributions from his Western devotees, which made it possible for him to follow the lifestyle of an American millionaire"  & this sentence from the Lede "He has also been criticized for leading a sumptuous lifestyle because he doesn't eschew material possessions - adequately cover Hunt & Kranenborg & Levine.
 * This sentence from "Teachings - Journalists and scholars have described Rawat's teachings as lacking in intellectual content.[91][92]- adequately covers Larkin Foss.
 * Singer's comments belong in the DLM article.
 * The Paul Schnabel section is very badly summarized.
 * Wim Haan was a student and his comment from a student paper from a Catholic University is largely cover by "The Sants of this tradition dismiss ritual and dogma and focus on direct inner experience.[86][87] In accordance with Sant precepts Rawat has never developed a systematic doctrine, and the core of his teaching has remained the process of self-discovery, summed up by his statement, "Receive this Knowledge and know God within yourself. That pure energy, God, is within your own heart".[88] Rawat rejects theoretical knowledge" - in the teachings section.
 * Van der Lans comments are extreme and represent his opinion only.
 * The media criticism is selectively sourced as per a "Criticism of.." article.

The current article summarizes all the above comments in fair proportion and in the appropriate place. Counter comments from scholars such as Andrew Kopkind,[1] Charles H. Lippy,[2] John Bassett McCleary,[3] Ruth Prince and David Riches,[4] Bryan R. Wilson,[5] Dennis Marcellino, Erwin Fahlbusch,[6] Tim Miller, Raymond Lee, Rosemary Goring,[7] George D. Chryssides, David V. Barrett, Lucy DuPertuis, J. Gordon Melton, Jeffrey K. Hadden, Eugene M. Elliot III,[8] Sandra S. Frankiel,[9] and James Lewis. Barrett, Dupertuis, Melton are notably absent.Momento (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's quite a list. Maybe I should ask instead: what material from that article are you are willing to add? As for one critic, Mishler is hardly mentioned in this article and only in the context of minimizing his viewpoint. He was quoted extensively in the news with several criticism about the subject and the movement, criticisms that don't seem to be included in any form in this article. Anyway, if we're ready to start adding this material and re-writing it perhaps it's time to unprotect the page. Either that or create a draft page to start working on adding the critical material. Meantime, it may be worth reviewing the "criticism" article to see what cn be better merged with the DLM/EV and "Teachings" articles.    ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's all acceptable and it's already in. Mishler gave a radio interview in 1979 which was generally critical and is duly noted, why would he deserve more space? According to Melton "Robert Mishner [sic] the former president of the Mission, who left in 1977. Mishner complained that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill and that money was increasingly diverted to Maharaj Ji's personal use. Mishner's charges, made just after the deaths at Jonestown, Guyana, [1978] found little support and have not affected the progress of the Mission". No other scholar to my knowledge has made a comment about him.Momento (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, you say elsewhere that you "applaudd" this merger, but here you say that there's nothing to merge? Please help me understand what part of the merger you applaud. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are two issues here. The first is the intention to merge the "Criticism of Rawat" article with this article and I applaud that because there shouldn't be a "Criticism of Rawat" article in the first place. A second issue then arises, "what material from the 'Criticism' article needs to be added" and, as far as I'm concerned, most of the material is already here. The only material not here are the extreme views of Van der Lars and Haan.Momento (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you unaware of what "merge" means? It means to add the material from that article to this article. In fact there is plenty of material there that isn't here. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There are three types of "merge" described in Wikipedia editing - which to use depends on how much content of the source page you want to keep, and how much time and skill you have to do the merge: I presume we are doing the selective paste merge which involves deciding what content to keep. For example, you surely don't expect to put this in the Rawat article -"An article written by Wim Haan, published in the official magazine of the Free University of Amsterdam in 1981, forwards several critical statements. In the article, Haan wrote that he was a member of a critical movement within the Roman Catholic Church and that he was a student of theology at a Pastoral and Theology school in a small town in the Netherlands. In that article, based on his description of his involvement with the DLM over the course of two years in the Netherlands, he asserts that Rawat's battle against the mind sometimes degenerated into complete irrationality, that sometimes premies branded every critical and objective approach as "mind", and that they often avoided discussions with outsiders because these discussions could possibly stimulate the mind". Or do you?Momento (talk) 06:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Full-content paste merger - most content, clean and fast
 * Selective paste merger - some content, clean but slow
 * Text dump merger - *ALL* content, crude but fast and easy
 * I'm not responsible for writing any of the text in the "Criticism" (though I've made some changes per your recommendations). I'm proposing a merger, which usually means adding in the non-redundnat material. The text you cite seems wordy, but I haven't read the underlying source to know whether or not it's properly summarized. I'm not even sure that Haan is someone we need to cite.
 * Let me ask the question again - which material do you think can be merged? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And I'll tell you again, I think the worthwhile material has already been adequately summarized and included. But you obviously think it hasn't. So why don't you do what I've done, read every single word of what these sources have said about Rawat and decide if the summary accurately reflects their opinion. Then we'll be on the same page and we can discuss what you think is important that's been left out.Momento (talk) 07:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So you "applaud" the merger of these two articles, but you think that nothing should be merged. And you don't see any contradiction there? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

<<< I think it is premature to ask for unprotection. The ArbCom case is just a few days from closing, at which point we will have the necessary framework to engage in discussions and resume editing without disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it premature to say what material you think is redundant or poorly sourced? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I already addressed that: Bring one source at the time, and let's discuss it, check if it is already used, assess if it is worthy of incusion and in which context, does it add value or not, is it redundant or necessary, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say the same to Momento: Bring each one of the sources you mention, with a proposal on how to include it so that we all can take a look and discuss. Making long lists of sources or asking for blanket statements will not work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You said above that the existing "Criticism" article is poorly sourced. Are you now unsure which parts are poorly sourced? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not say that, Will. Is late here. Gnite. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked you three times but you've never answered the question. Folks say they are willing to allwo criticism in this article, but then they object to any actual criticism being added. It's a bit ridiculous. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Does anyone have an old, blank DLM ashram application? I think we should at least post the third page and then let Jossi explain why the guru isn't that way anymore. That would seem to be a balanced approach to things. Wowest (talk) 06:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure understand you (never having seen an ashram application). Which "way" do you mean? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the big issues for Wowest and others is that Rawat stopped being a Guru in the early 80s.Momento (talk) 07:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

<< What is the purpose of all these discussions here, when Will Beback has already taken it upon himself, and without discussion or seeking consesus, moved large portions of the material in that old article to Divine Light Mission, and Elan Vital (organization)? I will continue the discussion about the moved material in the respective articles. Now, my turn to ask a question, Will: Why? Why are you on one hand seem interested in discussing issues, and on the other hand you seem to dismiss the need for discussion, almost as if to prove a point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you observe my edits more closely you'll see that I have been respsonding to Momento, who has participated in this discussion, by deleting an external link from the article by moving material more relevant to DLM to that article, and by drafting new text. You've been invited into this discussion several times. If you don't make any specific comments about the material it's hard to act on them. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 15:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Will. That is not the way it looks. Seems to me to be a bit pointy. Is this and an attempt to force your hand by bypassing the development of consensus? Momento and you are not the only two editors, and there is no need to rush things and trample the building of consensus in the process. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone who wants to participate in this discussion, or the discussions on other talk pages, is welcome to do so. Consensus doesn't mean waiting until everyone has gotten around to saying "yes". You often advocate "BRD". I haven't added anything to this article, and I won't until the protection is lifted. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * BRD is a great device, but placing a mergeto on one article, and then move the material to another article is, how can I put it gently? ... not compatible with one another? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you object to adding material to an article then I suggest raising that concern in the article's talk page. The intent is to move to this article whatever material from "Criticism of Prem Rawat" is appropriate, as suggested by the merge tag. Material more appropriate for other articles goes to those articles. Do you think a criticism of the DLM belongs here or in the DLM article? I'd be surprised if you think it belongs here. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Respectfully object the merge. The article is huge already. Summary style offers a proper advise for such cases. Mukadderat (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2600 words is not "huge". By comparison, the biography of a similarly notable individual, OSHO, is 6400 words. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Shall we agree that it is large, then? :-) Mukadderat (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not so large that it can't be made NPOV by including all significant viewpoints. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please explain how Summary style will prevent you from inclusion of all significant points. Mukadderat (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Imagine a bio in which all of the praise for the subject is in the main article, and all of the criticism is in a separate article (save for a brief summary). Such an article would not meet the basic policy of NPOV. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (thread de-archived to keep active) ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've created a central discussion for mergers, Talk:Prem Rawat. This particular discussion can continue here, but it'd also be helpful to view it in the broader context. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sophia Collier? Really?? Wow...
I don't know who added the quote, I can see why some people would want that quote in the article, but seriously, are you kidding me?? Not surprisingly, since jossi is the only one who's done anything other than clean-up work, the Sophia Collier page (as well as this article) neglects to mention that she's a former student of Rawat's. And this article gives that quote way too much weight. This is not a quote from a scholar's book, it's an autobiography, of someone who was 16 at the time she was living in an ashram (for a month), and the book wasn't written until 6 years later. Also, jossi, while you're at it, if you want to fix Sophia's article, I am pretty sure she didn't sell her beverage company to Joseph E. Seagram in 1989, since he'd been dead for about 70 years at that point. If I can find some sources, I will try and edit that article later. I don't even know how to express my incredulity at this addition. I have seen people on this article "freak out" because a reference was from a sociologist/psychologist/historian/scientist/scholar/whatever's PhD thesis, and therefore has undue weight, but a passing reference from a 16 year old girl who talks about her drug abuse and LSD experiences during that time in her life, written 6 years after the fact, that's ok with the same people?!? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 15:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have asked you already to stop discussing other editors, and focus on discussing the article.  If you have proposals on how to improve citations or use of sources, you can do that without resorting to such comments. The Collier quote was not added by me, btw. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If it was possible, I would do so, but the actions of some of the editors on this article make that, at times, impossible I'm afraid. Perhaps you could help police their behaviour in the first place, or are you suggesting that quote is just fine in this article? Anyway, in case you missed my suggestion, I suggest we remove that quote from Collier completely. Thanks for letting me know you weren't the one that added it, you weren't at the top of my list of suspects, but I'll cross you off completely now. :) -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 16:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Maelefique, I think your question about Collier is a good one, but your point will be more effective if you can avoid sarcasm, and teasing the editors you want to engage. Msalt (talk) must have forgotten to sign this, where's sinebot when you need it?
 * Given a choice between John Dart of the LA Times and Collier, I'd pick Collier every time.Momento (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, a writer for a multi-Pulitzer Prize winning periodical is always a bad choice for reference material over a 16 year old drug-abusing girl writing about her memories, six years later... Excellent choice...did I mention?... Wow... -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 18:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Collier book, let's remember that it is an autobiography, hence a primary source. WP:PSTS: We can use it, we just need to be careful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.


 * Sure, we could use it for some things, but I don't believe the quote we're using to be acceptable. It is not a book about PR, her description of the time was written 6 years later, and it was during her LSD addicted/experimental phase, and she still manages to make a philosophical distinction about how Prem Rawat was percieved? She says "those that knew him better", her one month in an ashram made her an expert, she now knew him better? Enough to make that statement? Show me her professional credentials please. I was alive for the moon landing, that doesn't mean my opinion of it is relevant (and I wasn't on drugs at the time even!). Mael e fique (t a lk) 00:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no difference between Collier reporting what she sees and a reporter from the NY Times reporting what they see. And as you can see we have several NY Times reporters quoted in this article.Momento (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Momento, there is a difference. A newspaper like the NY Times is considered a secondary source, while an autobiography like Collier's book is a primary source. If you'd like to change Wikipedia policies then this isn't the place to do it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that an autobiography is a primary source for the subject of the autobiography, but a secondary source for claims/opinions about third parties. I think it would be a good idea to ask at the WP:RS/N for other opinions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What policy page gives you that impression? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What policy page gives you the impression that is not? What I am saying is that this is my understanding. I may be wrong, so that is why I think it will be nice to ask others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:PSTS, a part of WP:NOR, makes no mention of treating autobiographies differently in different articles. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify the matter I've posted a question at Wikipedia talk:No original research ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Beyond the question of primary vs. secondary is reliability. Momento, what you're missing is that the New York Times (and similar newspapers and magazines) are independent, highly reliable sources with accountability and proven track records.   They area specifically cited as the BEST kind of information in the Biographies of Living Persons policy, along with appropriate scholarly sources.  Collier has none of these attributes, and the fact that you prefer her to an award winning journalist is a perfect demonstration of how you are promoting your POV over the interests and policies of Wikipedia. It's not even clear that Collier is a reliable source about herself. Her account is interesting, even fascinating as an insider's view and a source of color on the times and events she went through, but Wikipedia is not the place for lots of color from shaky sources. Msalt (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The specific use of Collier is especially bad. She is used to justify a sweeping statement about the experience of many thousands of followers of Rawat on multiple continents, yet she has no credentials as a journalist or writer, and obviously draws only on her own narrow experience (apparently one ashram for one month) to make this sweeping statement.  If she had said something more modest such as "My friends and I had a different experience, we didn't believe he was God but thought of him as blah blah blah" she would be appropriately matching her knowledge and words.  But then of course the modest statement wouldn't belong in this article. Msalt (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There are also discussions of Collier on Talk:Divine Light Mission and Talk:Teachings of Prem Rawat. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Where did the Mahatmas come from?
Were they all "ordained" (pick your own word if needed) by Prem Rawat personally? Were all Mahatmas equal in status? In knowledge/ability? Could any Mahatma give the Knowledge (during the DLM days?)? Anyone have any good sources on the Mahatmas specifically? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 05:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Many of the Indian mahatmas that came to the West were mahatmas of Shri Hans. Newer ones were chosen and briefed by Mata Ji. After the split most of the Indian mahatmas returned to India and Rawat appointed 4 western mahatmas and over the next five years he appointed more than 80 non-Indian mahatmas. And changed the name to "initiators" and then "instructors". In the 80s & 90s people applied and some would be chosen. In the 90s new instructors were approved by the existing instructor team. Some were full time and some part time. There wasn't a hierarchy as such, but the older Indian mahatmas were respected and deferred to by the younger in the early 70s and when they got too old to travel they retired to an ashram. There was no hierarchy with western ones. All mahatmas could give Knowledge to anyone in the 70s. This is from personal experience and a little research.Momento (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Momento forgot to mention the first western mahatma, Saphlanand, who was appointed by Rawat in India. He is no longer a follower and contributes to the online discussion forums where he has recounted many stories from those early days in India. --John Brauns (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's helpful. So after the split all mahatmas were appointed by Prem Rawat personally, with the exception of those original Indian mahatmas that didn't leave? Do we know anything about mahatmas that were in the ashrams when they closed? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 06:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rawat appointed the mahatmas after the split but in the 90s the existing instructor team would decide who would be appointed. No Indian mahatmas retired in the west, almost all of them went back to India after the split and retired to ashrams there. Presumably those who were loyal to Rawat ended up in his ashrams and those loyal to Mataji went to Satpal's. Western instructors were usually self supporting and did the job for a few years.Momento (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In my research I have not found any sources about mahatmas, besides a mention in Melton's The Encyclopedia of American Religions that they teach four yoga techniques as a personal representative of Guru Maharaj Ji. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't found much about them either, doesn't that seem a little strange? Not strange as in conspiracy-strange, just strange as in odd-strange. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 15:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There's nothing strange about it - apart from the initial blaze of publicity about the boy God from India, Rawat has always been, and continues to be, an obscure figure attracting little academic interest. Consequently the best sources for information about him are those who have been on the inside of the movement.  Current followers sadly will only give the party line, which leaves former followers the only ones with the detailed information, and the openness to share it.  Unfortunately, until a trusted academic or reputable newspaper does a serious study of Rawat using the resources that are now available, contributors to the Rawat articles will have to scratch around for sources that can be used.  --John Brauns (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Haan's 1981 account gives some detail about the mahatmas, by and large consistent with Momento's account above (e.g. renaming to "initiators", p. 47; privileged to give Knowledge and in high esteem within the movement, p. 37-38; their number reduced to about 50 shortly before autumn 1981, p. 57 footnote 3; etc).

Note that at /scholars Melton is not the only one mentioning mahatmas. Some other authors also give detail, e.g. from India; saffron robe (Geaves); "at this writing, all but one of Guru Maharaj Ji's some two thousand mahatmas are from India or Tibet" (Messer 1976); etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * From what other sources have said, the function of Mahatmas/Instructors in giving Knowledge has now been replaced by the series of DVDs known as "The Keys." Does anyone know if they still exist, in this or some other role, today? Msalt (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, they still exist - I understand instructors conduct the teaching of the techniques (Key 6), and help with any questions students have. --John Brauns (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No. There are no instructors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)


 * There were a few Indian Mahatmas that remained in the U.S. after the family split. One was Mahatma Guru Charanand Ji, who is now known as "Charanand," Mahatma Padarthanand, Mahatma Jagdeo, and Mahatma Fakiranand, (he was one of the two people who tried to murder Pat Halley in Detroit, Michigan).  There were a few more.  Many of the former western instructors are now ex-premies, including Mike Finch, who was also closely involved in Rawat's first travel to Britain and the U.S., (something that's been omitted in Cagan's book Peace is Possible).  In the 70s and 80s Rawat chose all of the western instructors personally and held intensive workshop-type trainings  known as "Initiator's Development Programs," or IDP.  Here is a copy of the Instructor's Training Manual.  Instructors still exist to assist people with Key 6, which is what people watch to receive the techniques of Knowledge.  As John said, Rawat is not a famous person, and he has practically no name recognition.  His notability and notoriety stems from the publicity he gained in the 1970s in the U.S.  Sylviecyn (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, there are no more instructors. Sorry to disappoint you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi, could you clarify whether you mean there are no more people given the title 'instructor' by Rawat or there are no more people who carry our the duties that instructors formerly carried out. I understand that the techniques are now taught by Rawat on DVD, but there was a time when the techniques were taught by Rawat in person and there were many instructors at that time. --John Brauns (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I would decline responding. This is not a discussion forum. You can go and ask a question in the Keys website. The customer reps there may be helpful in providing you with the information you are requesting. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It was you who used this talk page to make the unsourced claim that there are no more instructors, hence it is to you yourself that you should address your wikilawyering. Without the clarification I asked you to provide, your statement has no meaning. --John Brauns (talk) 08:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not clear on what you're saying jossi, is that your opinion, or a fact? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 14:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fact. The sessions are conducted via a video presentation. There is a person that runs the system that plays back the video presentation in which PR teaches the techniques himself (in a AV or usher role, very much uninvolved with the participants). The presentation is available in more than 50 languages, including many Indian and African dialects. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Jossi - that is interesting. I know we are straying a little off topic but does the person who runs the session have the authority to answer any questions the participants have? --John Brauns (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Off-topic indeed. The answer to your question is no. Let's stay on topic, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * From the website you provided jossi, do these telephone assistants not perform the same role?

If I have questions about the process or content of The Keys, is there someone I can call? You can ask questions or make comments either at "Inquiries" on this website or by speaking with a telephone assistant at any time during the preparation process. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 16:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A phone assistant/customer service is not a "mahatma" or "instructor" :). In any case, we are veering off topic. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd agree, if the inquiries were only about process, but questions about content are also allowed, that would seem to be interpretive, ergo, seems much more like an instructor. Anyways, as you say, we're a little off topic here, so let's move on. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 17:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

article editing conflict
What a boring read, why don't you all put your guns down. and start the whole article again in a friendly constructive way?

you could collaborate and actually 'have' an article..?

Personally I feel that as your primarily discussing an individual his basic human rights have priority..? I wouldn't like people publicly debating the truth of my life, (especially so aggressively).

There seems to be some malice involved too, what about live and let live...?

kiss (keep it simple stupid).

If you think it's boring don't read it.PatW (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration underway
The request for arbitration was accepted:

--John Vandenberg (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

comment here 147.114.226.172 (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Downton and Divinity
Downton says "We learned from the Mahatma that, if Jesus Christ was our master that was fine because Guru Maharaj Ji, in essence, was no different from Jesus Christ". Does that sound like a claim of divinity to anyone else? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 07:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is from the mahatma.Momento (talk) 08:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And a representative of Prem Rawat, who's sole purpose there is to help teach people Prem Rawat's ideas. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 08:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That was certainly supposed to be their "sole purpose." Being human, a lot of them inserted other purposes. That sort of hyperbole was far from rare. Rumiton (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How funny. Ruminton's hyperbole here is more misleading than the Mahatma! He at least taught simply and honestly what he'd been taught. Ruminton and Momento want to blame him and his like, in order to let Prem Rawat off the hook. It's that simple.  Prem Rawat, or Maharaji or Guru Maharaj Ji (as he was then known) believed he was Divine - which is no doubt where the Mahatma got confirmation of his belief or heard it in the first place. Maelefique you will shortly see how current followers (who really want to own this article and are succeeding) will bend over backwards to assert their revisionist spin on the past - especially when it comes to Rawat's claims of Divinity - which have been discussed ad nauseam.  Ruminton and Jossi have all made the most absurd arguments to prove Rawat said only he wasn't Divine - when in fact he made it quite clear he was a God man, not only in the league of Christ and Krishna, but actually greater. "I have come with more power than ever before".   Just read the history of my (deleted) Talk Page and see how Momento squirms to get out of this even when faced with incontrovertible evidence.PatW (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If only people would simply look up a dictionary. Divine means = of, from, or like God or a god. According to Rawat we are all of, from or like God and so is he.Momento (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't quote anything regarding the word Divine, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. I did quote Rawat's representative stating that Rawat was the same as Christ. If that's what his staff were telling people, then that's notable. I'm sure it certainly wouldn't have hurt him from a recruitment standpoint. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 15:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What's the dictionary definition got to do with it anyway? Momento is now insinuating that Rawat considers us all equal. Well yes he did say we all have the potential to be as wise as him, but he also said he would always be ahead of us in those enlightenment stakes. So that's his rationale for the need for a Master. And why did Rawat encourage people to worship him as The Superior Power in Person if he so equal? He encouraged people to sing those words to his picture every morning and night and to him in person whilst he sat dressed up as the Hindu Lord Krishna. I don't like to have to rub this in but why are followers so shy about this? I don't feel the need to lie about it or pretend it didn't happen, I was there;  and for your information, neither do plenty of other people who were there (and that includes current followers I know).  It's almost as if there is some secret request from Prem Rawat  that only certain followers (Ruminton, Momento and Jossi) post or edit here. Why else would there be such a strange denial about this? It is not a widely held view that Rawat did not consider himself very much a superior being who alone has the 'keys' to life's ultimate purpose - which included recognising Him as 'The Superior Power in Person'. Come on, surely there are some other followers out there prepared to come here and point out how wrong Momento and Ruminton are about the past. (Jossi is very silent about all this of course). Perhaps I should dig out the words to that song which Rawat had followers sing to him in the West right up until the early eighties and probably still does. (I wouldn't know about that). Maelefique, Will Beback, would like me to post those words here to help you get the gist? Would that be appropriate?  Jossi?PatW (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer PatW, but unless you can quote the words from a source we can use, along with a source saying it was used by the premies, I don't think it will help us too much, and I think I pretty much have the gist of things anyway, I don't wanna speak for Will, he doesn't need me to, but I think he's got a pretty good handle on the situation as well. It's only slightly relevant anyway, if PR's representatives were comparing him to Christ, that might be notable. I don't hear a lot about priests saying the Pope is Buddha, as hyperbole or otherwise (because if they did, oh, it would be newsworthy!). -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 23:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No need for priests in Rawat's case. He proclaimed his divine status himself on many occasions. One has only to read his speeches from DLM magazines from the time. I have a question. You have already resisted the use of Sophie Colliers book which was used here in a highly selective manner to illustrate how Rawat said to reporters that he was not God. What was omitted was the surrounding context which clearly indicated that Collier saw how Rawat spoke out of both sides of his mouth about such matters. Ie. gave his followers a far different impression. (I argued ad nauseam about that). Had someone then pointed out we can't use Collier because she's just a stoned follower then that would have neatly solved that problem. (Actually I've read Collier and I thought her book was intelligent and honest). In the past I limited my involvement here to trying to establish ground rules on what publications were permissable. I (unlike Momento and Ruminton} made the gesture of not editing until that was clear. That argument became entrenched and unclear despite Jossi's apparent' uber-clarity. Now we still have Ruminton and Momento warning everyone to observe BLP when editing here, as if they really know what that means. Frankly I think nobody really knows what these policies allow or disallow. Everyone (including neutral people with much experience) seems to have a different interpretation. Vassayana seemed to think that even Primary Sources were OK if used sensitively. I pointed out that the DLM magazines are available in many public libraries (ready public availability seemed to be a criteria). The devil is in the detail. What and whos 'sensitively is needed when using sources'? Jossi, Ruminton and Momento always shout 'IT IS PERFECTLY CLEAR' but I don't see it. They seem to exploit the vagueness to twist things to suit their own POV which, given their position as having strong views on the matter, is hardly surprising. One thing that has never been established is what sources can be used. And if there is accord on that then these guys have the books. Do you or Will have them too? How can you tell if stuff is cherry-picked if you don't have the books? Even when sources are approved they then argue that the people are expressing a minority view or it's not suitable for a BLP. It's just a no win situation. Now Collier is not ok to use... once it was. Who decides eventually?PatW (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC) PatW (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Deciding on good sources is always one of the toughest choices when putting together an article. It is not important that the sources be "readily available", but I would agree it is important that the sources are available somehow. I do not know Will, so again, I cannot answer for him in terms of what books Will has, but without getting into a "Mine's bigger than yours" argument, I think it's safe to say my access is at least as complete as anyone's, with the possible exception of jossi who seems to have access to specific archives that he can refer to very quickly when he needs to find an opposing view and EV's archives (which I'm starting to think may be related/connected). EV in particular seems to keep a lot of material around for the sole purpose of discrediting others, which I must say I find a little odd for an "enlightened" organization . -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 15:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your comment is unnecessary, unhelpful, and inappropriate for these pages. If you could refactor that comment and stay on-topic, it would be most appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yours is redundant. And as a blanket statement, I disagree with you entirely. Which comment are you referring to? That good sources are important? Availability of sources may be an issue? I don't know Will? I have access to a lot of books? You have access to a lot of books? EV's collection has a lot of books? You might have access to EV's collection? EV uses its collection to discredit people? Or that I find that odd? I'm not sure what it is you're objecting to, if you could clarify, I may be able to help. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 17:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, this conversation is far from useful and off-topic. You are assuming that (a) EV "keeps a lot of material around for the sole purpose of discrediting others"; (b) "jossi who seems to have access to specific archives that he can refer to very quickly when he needs to find an opposing view"; (c) then you are stating another off-topic comment about EV being "a little odd for an "enlightened" organization. Keep these comments to yourself, and do not mis-use these pages: Stay on-topic. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The topic is sources for this article, if you think sources are "off-topic", that's just goofy. But anyway... (a) That's not an assumption, that's what I've personally witnessed, that's called an empirical fact. (b) (Also not an assumption, unless you've been lying to us all this time, my only assumption is that all the sources you've provided, are actually sources you provided, which is lots!) You have great access to many relevant sources, what the heck is the problem with that? It's important to have source access! Especially for an article as contentious as this one. (c) Ok, I can see where this one doesn't have much to do with this article, so I've fixed that, thanks. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 17:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This thread seems to have wondered far from its starting point. If I may make an observation about the suject and the DLM movement, there appears to have been a disconnect between what the subject said about himself and what his adherents, even the most senior followers, said about him. To boil it down, we have many quotes of him saying "I'm not god", and many quotes of his followers saying something like "he's god". This disconnect was so well known that he was asked about it during a press conference in 1973. As for the here and now, I perceive that some editors want to find proof that the subject called himself "god", while others want to disprove any such findings. My suggestion is to "cover the controversy". We should cover both what the subject said about himself and what his official followers said about him. Some of the latter may belong more in "DLM" or "Teachings", but it should be covered here too at least briefly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this discussion suffers to some extent from the same old misunderstanding about the word "God", etc. In Eastern religion -- Taoism, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism -- it is assumed that all so-called "enlightened teachers" are essentially the same. The inward reality of one is no different from that of any other (though their modes of expression may be, depending on the environment they find themselves in). You have the same idea in sufism – every sufi is supposed to be inwardly the same as any other, their inner realisation is the same (and sufis regard Jesus as a sufi ...). And from what I've read it is quite possible to have two sufi teachers teaching in close geographical proximity, each of them claiming to be the Qutb, which is kind of like the navel of the world. What has to be understood here is that the "navel of the world" is not a location, it is a quality that the teacher impersonates. It can be manifested in more than one place. Hence two teachers both claiming to be the Qutb are not necessarily in conflict (though their disciples may be) as to who is "the real Qutb". What matters is that each teacher is the Qutb, or centre of attention, to his disciples. Now as an encyclopedia we should exhibit at least a moderate familiarity with Eastern religious thought when it comes to articles in this field, and not play schoolboy pranks like "he claimed he was Jesus". The understanding of "God" in these religions is fundamentally different from that in exoteric Christianity (as pointed out by van der Lans and Schnabel). Jayen 466 20:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your observation about Eastern and particularly Hindu concepts of God seem correct. And this encyclopedia should try to give the most correct interpretations. The differing views may explain the differing statements made by the subject and his followers. It may be that Davis was not truly aware of the Eastern concept of god so he conflated it with his own Western concept of God. Anyway, it's not for us to go back and correct what Davis, et al., said. I again suggest that the way to handle this is to report what Rawat said about himself and what his followers said of him, even if they are contradictory. As a great Yankee philospher once said, "when you come to a fork in the road, take it." ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * :-)) Agreed, and well put. Jayen 466 20:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, Jayen, it's not about a misunderstanding of Eastern religious terminology. Rawat has claimed he's greater than God all of the time from the time he came to the western countries.  People can claim that it was the mahatmas, but there were plenty of western initiators/instructors around the world, and that's what was taught, and Rawat hand-picked and trained those instructors intensively.  They were his agents.  This isn't about a confusion about eastern versus western definitions of "God" or "Jesus," and this difficulty really has nothing to do with anyone's misconceptions about Eastern religious concepts versus western Judeo/Christian concepts about the terms "God" or "Lord."  If you read the words of the English version of Arti that was sung in all of the western ashrams, communities, and to his face (in person when he was sitting on a stage) dressed up in the Krishna costume, it's more than obvious who he thinks he is and evidence enough of, not only his belief in his own divinity (greater than God) but that he encourages and has taught about his divinity throughout the 70s to the present day.  He just gave the press a very different response -- he'd deny it.  The problem with this article is the same one that is found with many NRMs that have a living leader who is worshipped as divine:  The real truth isn't told about the leader's personal divinity when introduced to public, hence, there is one story told to the public, and the true story is told as people become indoctrinated towards receiving the techniques of Knowledge.  I can provide plenty of quotes of Rawat's that tell the story of how he promotes himself as God in a bod.  But, I'll then be accused of starting a "quote war."  You won't get the real, true story out of adherents, because they're not allowed to discuss it anymore, especially in public.  Sylviecyn (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The full quote is "God is great but Guru is greater than God because he reveals God".Momento (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See Guru ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There is some truth in what Jayen says about there being room for multiple incarnations generally in Hindu sects. But pease don't think you can teach me about this Jayen- I and many others posting here are educated in these matters. The situation you describe is sort of true but it was not always accepted so happily and in Rawat's case he was very adamant about his unique status. You do not consider mentioning the phenomenon of 'Succession Disputes' which characterise Hindu sects. All scholars of Hinduism talk about this. Read Jurgensmeyer if in doubt. There was often violent disagreement between sects, in fact Rawats fathers sect attracted considerable extremely violent opposition from opposing groups- namely the Arya Samaj. This is well documented. Also when Prem Rawat's mother and brother tried to take control of DLM in India there was also violence and a court case with Rawat over property rights - which Rawat effectively lost; the judge reprimanding both parties for being manifestly 'ungodly' in their disagreement. Rawats brother now claims to be the true successor of the Guru Mantle as does Prem Rawat but there is no agreement that they are both authentic. (although they essentially teach the same meditation and Bhakti (devotional path). It's a historical fact that Rawat allowed himself to be promoted as being more than just another 'guru'. The back cover of the book "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?" (published by Bantam, Nov. 1973) asks this further question: "Why do more than six million people around the world claim he is the greatest incarnation of God that ever trod the face of this planet? ..." Rawat was educated at a Catholic school and Christian belief informed much of his teachings in the 1970s - especially at the Millennium event in Houston, '73. Look at this picture to see what I mean.
 * In answer to the question, "Do you think that there is only one Perfect Master"? Rawat said: "You see –here I want to be very frank –people come to me and ask me about this, and they say, 'What is your opinion about a Perfect Master? Is there one, is there two?' I tell them my opinion that there is only one Perfect Master. Because perfectness, is one, not two, not three. So there is only one Perfect Master in this world. And because he is perfect, that’s it..He is perfect. You just can’t divide perfect".
 * This posted here by Revera:
 * Here's Rawats fathers own published words from 'Hans Yog Prakash': My Guru is the incarnate Lord of this time. I bow before my Guru, who is greater than Christ or Buddha, for each of them was the servant of his Satguru.
 * And young Rawat in his famous 'Peace Bomb' satsang: "Who is Guru? The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here, to whom will you give your devotion? Guru Maharaj Ji knows all. Guru Maharaji is Brahma (creator). Guru Maharaji is Vishnu (Operator). Guru Maharjai is Shiva (Destroyer of illusion and ego). And above all, Guru Mahraji is the Supremest Lord in person before us. I have come so powerful. I have come for the world. Whenever the great come,the worldly oppose them. Again I have come and you are not listening. Every ear should hear that the saviour of humanity has come. There should be no chance for anyone to say that they haven't heard of Guru Maharaj Ji. Those who have come to me are already saved. Now its your duty to save others. Shout it on the streets. Why be shy? When human beings forget the religion of humanity, the Supreme Lord incarnates. He takes a body and comes on this earth ......"PatW (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We have been through this so many times that it is becoming really boring. The end of the Peace Bomb satsang reads: "What can I say about Guru Maharaj Ji who has sent me amongst you and has given me this chance to serve you? The name of such a merciful Guru Maharaj Ji is Shri Hans Ji Maharaj. , which makes it quite clear about who the 13-year old PR is referring to. You may want to read this, that explains the dynamics quite well: The guru-disciple relationship (page 264 and forward): ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (OT) From Muktananda: "The moment a disciple merges into the Guru, neither the disciple nor the Guru exist as a separate entity any longer. The moment a devotee merges into the Lord he is no longer a devotee and the Lord no longer a separate entity. Names and forms disappear, Guru and disciple, Lord and devotee are relative terms, one depending on the other; if one in these pairs vanishes, the other vanishes by itself" - In any case, I think this is enough philosophy for a Friday for me, which btw, I need to prepare for tomorrow's Passover :). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Pat, you are right that succession disputes and splits in movements are a common occurrence. And no doubt some, many or all such teachers are frauds. It would be a miracle if there weren't any. ;-) Yet what Rawat says about the indivisibility of the perfect master makes perfect sense in Hindu theology. The satguru is primarily a divine inner quality, that is, by definition indivisible and beyond duality. Likewise, it is in keeping with the theology that each guru promotes himself to the exclusion of others -- it is assumed that other gurus can speak for themselves. The guru is supposed to make himself available to the one(s) in front of him, and arouse their attention to a sufficient degree that they see in him what there is to be seen. Words such as "greatest" are not comparative forms, but superlatives and an indication of supposed exaltation. The apparent comparison implied in Shri Hans' claiming that his satguru is greater than Jesus or Buddha is more properly seen as his saying that the satguru is real, here and now, while Buddha and Jesus are mere concepts. In fact, the mindset of comparison is held to be incompatible with disciplehood; I think that applies to most, if not all master/disciple-based systems. The basic ingredient is the disciple's trust. Moreover, it is held in various mystical traditions that one teacher may denounce another in the sharpest terms, while knowing full well that the other teacher is as realised as he is himself. There are many reasons for this – stopping the disciple's mind from wandering in an unproductive and speculative way, creating situations, etc. "Things that look opposed may in reality be working together." Even the question as to whether someone is a true or false teacher is to some extent a non-question; for if the disciple's introspective experience is real, the teacher has done his job, whatever his own inner state, and is held to deserve gratitude. It is clear that the potential for abuse in the master/disciple system is infinite, and it is certainly questionable whether the system has any validity at all. Incidentally, the same can be said for all other religions as well. A difference is though that most disciples exercise some personal choice in the selection of their master, while affiliation with the established religions based on the teachings of historical figures is largely determined by an accident of birth. Incidentally, Maharaji's reference to the "religion of humanity" in the above quote was probably a reference to the Manav Dharam that his brother uses as a label these days. Cheers, Jayen 466 01:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention of wandering off the point here at all. I agree with Will that what Rawat said and what his official followers said is important and should be covered. I also agree that some editors want to disprove the subject called himself "God" in as much as they introduce only the 'sheepish denials' which Collier reported amongst others. I also agree that others (rightly) want to prove that he did mean he was uniquely divine. I don't believe Jayen's opinions help clarify the matter however well-intentioned. Nor does a published Doctor of Indian religion and philosophy at London University who spent 10 years in India studying Hinduism other sects. I read him this entire thread. He said that, with all due respect, what Jayen said is untrue with regard to Rawat's tradition and his Advait Mat roots and that the Sufi (Qutb) comparison is spurious. ''Agra's incarnational theory posits that the divine current rises and ebbs. When it is present, it exists only in one person, the Satguru of that generation; when it is not, the current has temporarily withdrawn. According to the Beas teachings only a few param sants have appeared in world history-Kabir and Swami Shiv Dayal, for example. But there are many gurmukhs. At least one must be present in the world at all times, and there may be several: "There may and there may be several: "There may be many Masters living in different parts of the world.''' (page 70 - 'Radhasoami Reality' by M.Jurgensmeyer)
 * To generalise about 'misunderstanding about the word "God", etc. In Eastern religion' is entirely spurious.
 * 'In general Indian sects are not only disinterested in the claims of other sects, but the typical adherent has no knowledge whatsover of other sects beliefs or practices. So the fact they overlook the paradoxes is mostly for reasons of geography. Gurus do not have some sort of unspoken agreement that they can happily maintain a contradiction for the benefit of their disciples.
 * Jayen's claim that the Guru doesn't mean he is literally 'the Only One' is nonsense. Particularly in the case of Radhasoami or Sant tradition Satgurus. These groups claim that 'Satguru' is a particular singular incarnation of the highest form of God and that no other can exist at that time.
 * Rawat and others claiming to be the Paramhans Satguru believed and taught that they were the only living Perfect Master and that there could be no other co-existent equivalent. It is nonsense to insinuate that this was not their teaching. Jayen is actually insulting their beliefs because he is saying he knows better what they believe than they do. They say that Satguru is God on earth and that there is only one.
 * (indent PatW) The Radhasoami Tradition have some way of dealing with the seeming paradox of there being concurrently living 'Masters'. This is explained more clearly in Mark Jurgensmeyers book 'Radhasoami Reality'. The two main branches of the Radhasoamis (respectively at Agra and Beas in India) draw their own distinctions between the highest form of Guru, a 'Param Sant Satguru' and lesser 'Gurmukhs'. The former "has been born into the highest states of consciousness rather than acquiring them during his lifetime".
 * Most other Guru sects are rather more humble about these things.
 * The Sufi Tradition (Qutb etc) has little or nothing to do with Rawat's claims of Divinity. It is a typical tangential distraction from what Maharaji claimed (as per supplied quotes). The Qutb is a totally different claim than claiming you are the 'Prophet'. Sufis that claimed they were God were executed for heresy. Sant tradition is an altogether separate matter where it was acceptable to claim you were God. They do maintain the God incarnate idea - it is not a Muslim idea at all. PatW (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Sufis that claimed they were God were executed for heresy": That is perfectly true in the case of al-Hallaj, who was tortured and executed for saying "Ana al-Haqq" ("I am God" or "I am Truth"), but you forget to mention that the same al-Hallaj is considered a martyr and held in the greatest possible esteem by sufis. The WP article on al-Hallaj has a quote from Rumi to that effect, and Rumi is not exactly a fringe figure in sufism. As for the sufi tradition having nothing to do with Rawat's tradition, I am sure your Doctor of Religion is aware that Sikhism is an offshoot of sufism and hinduism, combining elements of both. As for satguru, here is how sikhiwiki defines the term; in addition it should be noted that satguru in Sikhism can refer both to the divine quality itself and to the one impersonating it. What has to be understood is that these are bhakti paths, based on love. If you are married, you may tell your wife that she is the most beautiful woman in the world, or words to that effect, and she will accept it as a realistic expression of how you feel. Someone who is lost in love only knows the superlative. Jayen 466 14:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S. Just to underscore the esteem that Rumi is held in, his Mathnawi is popularly known as "the Qur'an in Persian", an honour bestowed on no other Islamic poet. And there's a translation of a couple of poems by Rumi on al-Hallaj here. Jayen 466 20:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Jayen: I forgot to add that I agree with some other stuff you said like: 'It is clear that the potential for abuse in the master/disciple system is infinite, and it is certainly questionable whether the system has any validity at all.' I strongly feel that although it is not our position to project 'our' meaning onto the subjects words it is important to understand, as my informed friend has pointed out, that the tradition Rawat stems from historically embraces the idea of a Satguru being absolutely unique and that was an uncompromised belief. So it it really academically understood and not just a fancy of ex-premies who want to 'prove' something wishfully. It's maybe boring for some but if you want to fairly represent these peoples beliefs here some detailed background understanding is surely necessary. By the way I have not mentioned it (as it may count for little) but, for what it's worth, when I went to receive Knowledge from Maharaji's mahatma in 1974 (in London) we were very clearly taught that Rawat held to the traditional belief there was only one Satguru alive at any time and that He was the greatest ever incarnation 'come with more power than ever before'. There was no possible alternate interpretation. That was central to the teachings in my experience and was not something Rawat did not utterly believe himself. The mahatmas were essentially toeing the party line when they taught this to us. If you didn't buy into that belief at the time you were in an enormous minority and probably wouldn't last long. PatW (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To answer Maelefique's question at the top of this thread. Rawat frequently compared himself to Jesus in the early western years, claiming he reveals within people the exact same "knowledge of God" as Jesus revealed.  But, then he'd dress up as Krishna on a stage and place Arti on the event program while he had a crown on his head, etc.  For western and eastern followers the bottom line is he's the incarnation or the embodiment of God. There was no ambiguity for the western followers about what Rawat meant by saying “it’s the same Knowledge as Jesus taught,” and despite adherents' arguments here that Rawat “really” means that "God is in everyone," Rawat has never behaved as if all his followers enjoy equal status with him in the divinity department. (There are many contradictory Rawat quotes, but that's altogether another subject.) The point needs to be made that when Rawat came to the west he indeed exploited the Judeo/Christian religious concepts in order to explain to westerners "who He is," in terms that would make sense to young western followers. Btw, there was no eastern or western religious instruction involved in satsang, or an intellectual or educated manner, but there were plenty of explanations by satsang givers about how Rawat compares to Jesus.  For instance, in this interview of him by John Wood of The Boston Globe in 1973 Rawat's words are couched in terms and explanations about how he and Knowledge can be compared to Jesus and his teachings, at the same time, he denies his divinity.  You'll notice that while he compares what he gives to people as the same as Jesus, he also claims he's no messiah.  He never has made that distinction to followers -- that kind of denial was meant for purposes of the press only, because there was this young Indian guru, comparing himself to Jesus in the UK or the U.S.!!  That's a major, major claim of divinity by any cultural/religious standards.  Look what happened to the Beatles when John Lennon said they were more famous than Jesus!  I think Prem Rawat's claims of divinity are an extremely important aspect of Prem Rawat's biography, and all of the articles associated with him, especially the teachings.  Btw, I don't find this subject boring at all.  I find it extremely interesting.  Sylviecyn (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, this used to be in the article and addresses what we've been talking about here:
 * In an interview with in 1973 Tom Snyder host of "The Tomorrow show" TV series, Snyder asked Prem Rawat: "Now I'm not trying to be disrespectful but' Ive got to ask you this question: Many of your followers say that you are God. What do you have to say about this?" To which Rawat replied: "No, I am not God. I am only a humble servant of God."
 * So we have it that the followers said he was God and he denied it. I'm sure we can find additional sources of this type. This disconnect between Rawat's statements about himself and the statements by followers may be better placed in the "Teachings" or "DLM" article. This article should probably be focused on simple biographical details. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rawat also said in an interview that guru is greater than God because guru brings yout to God. It used to be in the article hundreds or thousands of revisions ago. Andries (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes Will, we need to find a way of illustrating why his followers called him God - that is because despite denials to the press, Rawat himself taught that he as Satguru, was all those things he said above. If we don't do that it's only the denials that are stressed and that is not balanced. Collier even described his denials as 'Sheepish'.PatW (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The NPOV approach here is clear -- to indicate that Prem Rawat himself made contradictory statements about his divinity, and that many of his followers (especially in early years) proclaimed him as God incarnate. Anyone who doesn't want the article to acknowledge that Rawat denied his divinity on some occasions, and embraced it on others, is either not listening to other editors or is pushing an agenda.  We need to acknowledge both points of view.
 * Jossi, the fact that Prem Rawat was speaking of his father in attributing divinity to "Guru Maharaj Ji" begs the question, since he declared himself to be his fathers one successor and took that same title, any divinity adhering to his father always applied to himself as well.
 * Claims of divinity have always been controversial. Jesus fended off people who asked if he was God too ("It is you who say I am"), but I don't think anyone with a neutral POV could argue that Jesus did not claim to be divine. It always invites trouble to make such a claim, and any wise religious figure is going to be a bit cagey about it.Msalt (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You hit the nail on the head there Msalt. What you say is I believe is exactly correct.PatW (talk) 08:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with Msalt that the NPOV approach is the only way to go, and that means demonstrating (using sources)that Rawat made contradictory statements about his divinity. (It just took me a helluva lot more words to make the point!)  Thanks!  :-) Sylviecyn (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that DuPertuis's paper covers the area quite well and should be drawn on extensively if we want to present this in more detail, for example:

Jayen 466 15:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Agreed. I wasn't aware of this paper. Thanks. This is much more the philosophy that was taught in the seventies although 'Shabd' was a Radhasoami term that was not used at all. Maharaji taught four meditation techniques which up until the eighties were referred to as Light, Music, Holy Name (sometimes called The Word) and Nectar. The latter was essentially the Kechari Mudra technique of Yoga. Although Advait Mat was Rawat's actual sect, the Radhasoamis clearly had very similar philosophies. As a matter of fact, the Radhasoami motto was 'Work is Worship' which was also the DLM motto. It was engraved above the door of the 'Palace of Peace' (a converted cinema in East Dulwich) in 1974. David Lane (mentioned above) wrote to me that he was told in India that Shri Hans had been initiated into Radhasoami by Sawan Singh prior to going his own way and meeting Adviat Mat guru Swarupanand. ''Hansji was clearly a follower of Sarupanand of Advait Mat. Hansji is also reported to have received initiation from Sawan Singh of Radhasoami Beas, as reported by Kirpal's personal secretary at Sawan Ashram, Gyanji (who I personally interviewed in July of 1978 on this issue). ''  It would seem probable that Shri Hans must have formed a separate group after, or even perhaps during, the lifetime of Sarupanand (who died in 1936) with himself as the 'Satguru'. ''so when he met Swami Swarupanand, the saint who became his Spiritual Teacher, he devoted himself totally and dived into the infinite ocean of spiritual wisdom. His Guru declared, "I am in Hans' heart, and he is in mine", and he became the spiritual successor to Swami Swarupanand. In the early days of his mission, Shri Hans Ji Maharaj disseminated Spiritual Knowledge in Sind and Lahore. From 1930 he started teaching in Delhi....''(Excerpt from 'Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaj', Published by Divine Light Mission in 1970, B-19/3, Shakti Nagar, Delhi 7, India - Page 3) >  PatW (talk)


 * Great, I am glad that source rings true to you. Jayen 466 23:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this the same Lucy DuPertuis who is described in Downton's 1979 book 'Sacred Journeys' as 'a follower'? --John Brauns (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, as has been pointed out before, I believe she is one of the scholars who is (or was) also a follower of Rawat's, like Geaves. But I am sure you have known that for much, much longer than me. ;-). Jayen 466 20:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, I had no idea. I just received a copy of Sacred Journeys and noticed the name.  I don't follow these discussions that closely.  --John Brauns (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's news to me. I've added this passage to our "scholars" page for future reference. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Discussed here on this page four weeks ago (March 17/18). User:Msalt mentioned it as a source (and kindly lent me a copy). (In fact, multiple mentions, also by NikWright and Jossi, in talk page archives 32, 33 and 34.) Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 20:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - things get lost in the miles of talk page commentary if you don't keep up. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Organization

 * Prem Rawat
 * The Prem Rawat Foundation
 * Divine Light Mission
 * Elan Vital (organization)
 * Teachings of Prem Rawat
 * Criticism of Prem Rawat


 * Category:Prem Rawat
 * Template:Prem Rawat
 * List of Prem Rawat-related topics

Above is a list of the main Prem-Rawat related articles with their redirects and dismabiguation pages, the navigation aids, and the deletion discussions.
 * PS: I've trimmed the list to remove the redirects, disambiguations, and AFDs. Those appear to have been a distraction. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've listed these to help us decide on a plan for organizing the material in a logical fashion. There are three active discussions at Talk:Divine Light Mission, Talk:Teachings of Prem Rawat, and  on this page, and an agreed-upon proposal at Talk:Divine United Organization that has already been carried out. I've also added a merge tag on the TPRF article.

The proposals on the table are:
 * Criticism of Prem Rawat be merged to Prem Rawat (material more relevant to other articles has already been merged)
 * The Prem Rawat Foundation to be merged to Prem Rawat.
 * Teachings of Prem Rawat be split, part merging with Divine Light Mission and part with Prem Rawat
 * Divine Light Mission be split into Indian and Western articles, and Elan Vital (organization) be merged with the Western DLM article.

If these merges were all carried out we'd have "Prem Rawat", which would include criticism of him, information on his teachings, and on his foundation. We'd have two articles on the DLM, one focussed on the organization in India ("Indian DLM ") and the other focused on the organization in the rest of the world ("Western DLM"). Those articles would contain some of the teachings of Prem Rawat and his predecessors.

If none of these mergers are conducted we still need to decide which information about teachings goes in which article - there are potentially four articles that could carry various aspects: "Prem Rawat", "Teachings of Prem Rawat", "Divine Light Mission", and "Elan Vital (organization)". Currently, all four include some discussion of teachings, beliefs or practices, and there is a degree of duplication between them.

Rather than fighting over these matters individually, let's try to find a consensus on how to move forward with the organization of the articles in this topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think all four merge proposals are good ones. For someone who has purposely avoided the public eye (ie notability), Prem Rawat and related subjects have way too many articles.  This makes it difficult for casual readers to find information.
 * One suggestion -- to avoid confusion, we may want to add the Hindi name of the DLM ("Divya Sandesh Parishad") in parentheses to the page on the Indian organization, the way "(organization)" follows Elan Vital. OR, we could simply keep it together with the article on the Western DLMs.  Frankly, we don't have much more than one long paragraph on the original Indian DLM, and any further details about it would fit just as well if not better in the page on Shri Hans Ji. Msalt (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Criticism of Prem Rawat be merged to Prem Rawat (material more relevant to other articles has already been merged) - As discussed in that article's talk page, we shall not do a blanket merge, but discuss each source one at the time.
 * The Prem Rawat Foundation to be merged to Prem Rawat.  - Disagree. Per WP:ORG: Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization. See Talk:The_Prem_Rawat_Foundation/Sources
 * Teachings of Prem Rawat be split, part merging with Divine Light Mission and part with Prem Rawat - Disagree. The teachings article is a spin-off of this article which took last last year. In the last flurry of edits, material that belongs to study of members and organization was added there. That needs to go back to the DLM article.
 * Divine Light Mission be split into Indian and Western articles, and Elan Vital (organization) be merged with the Western DLM article.  - Disagree The Divine United Organization article merged yesterday by Will Beback into the DLM article and without discussion at that article, needs to be un-merged. The DLM article as per sources need to remain such. The Elan Vital article can and should remain separate as per sources available. I placed other comments about the redirects inline above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: Criticism - we're already reviewing the sources at that article's talk page in preparation for moving them over then this article is unprotected. You've been participating there. You're idea of adding one source at a time is you're own idea - I don't recall it getting much support.
 * Re: TPRF - thanks for your input. Mayb I ask if you have a COI in regard to it? If you it'd be better if you stayed out of merge or delete decisions. See WP:COI.
 * Re: Teachings - I hope Andires will explain his concept of the split. It's premature to oppose it until he's done so. Let's discuss things rather than form "pro" and "anti" camps.
 * Re: DLM split. That's Nik's suggestion and we might want to discuss it where he gave his detailed proposal. Msalt suggests we can handle the indian materil in the main DLM article.
 * R: DUO. If you want to take DUO to AFD there's no way it would survive. It had three unsourced sentences. The merger was made as a result of a consensus of the editors on that page. I don't know why we had that article to being with. It's like having an article on the "Cleanlinness is next to godliness" jantiorial service, another DLM offshoot.
 * As I said above, let;s discuss these proposal rather than vote on them. I note that many of the articles on this topic were created by Jossi, and several editors have suggested reducung the number. While it's nice that he created them, they don't belong to him and I hope he won't keep exerting ownerhip over them. Let's put our biases and preconceived notions behind us and just work towards most logocial arrangement of articles for this encyclopedia.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I stated my disagreement on some of these proposals. Of course, I am willing to discuss them, but so far the arguments for merging have been very poor and mainly based on personal opinion or not made at all. As for your COI arguments, we shall wait for the ArbCom case to close, rather than preempt it with more nonsense, innuendo, and questioning. You go and read WP:COI and show me where there is any wording in that guideline about merges.  If the DUO article had no sources and fails WP:NOTABILITY, then send it to AfD rather than merge it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So are you saying you don't have a COI on any of these articles? If so then that's fine. If you do have a conflict, I request that you please recuse yourself from deletion and merge discussions. I'm sure you want to follow best editing practices. As for the lack of dicussion on some of these propsoal, that's why I started this thread - to discuss them. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I respectfully decline your request. COI does not preclude discussions on mergers, nor prohibits deletion discussions. Read the guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, regarding he notes you added to the lsit above - most of those redirects should not be deleled as many of them have editing histories that cover material added to the articles. Only redirects with no edits should be considered for deletion. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem in keeping these redirects, although some are quite unnecessary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding my merge/split proposal for the Teachings of Prem Rawat into Divine Light Mission and Prem Rawat, I think that there are too little sources that make a clear distinction between the teachings by Prem Rawat versus the beliefs and practices of Elan Vital/Divine Light Mission to warrant an article. If Jossi disagrees then I hope to hear from him sources that do otherwise. The descriptions of the Techniques of Knowledge sourced to Kranenborg and Melton in their articles about the DLM should be merged into Divine Light Mission while the re-naming by Rawat should either go into Elan Vital or Prem Rawat. Andries (talk) 09:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is quite arbitrary. As per my arguments above, there is a very clear distinction on scholarly sources between members' beliefs and studies on members conducted by Downton and Galanter, for example, and material in other sources specifically about the teachings. We ought to reflect that distinction in our articles. Check other article in the pedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the merger of Divine Light Mission and Elan Vital - every scholarly source I see that mentions both treats them as one. None have separate entries for them. If both are mentioned in the index one of the entries is just "See ..." Geaves goes even further, asserting that the TPRF has replaced EV just as EV replaced DLM. Yet he still treats them as one movement. That's a good reason to merge them.  Reading all three articles there's considerable redundancy, another good reason for merging. Elan Vital is only notable as the successor to DLM, and TPRF isn't notable at all. That's yet another good reason for merging.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We should follow WP:ORG, not an arbitrary method. TPRF has not replaced anything. There is no reason why not to keep separate articles and have a summary of these organizations in this article. There are thousands of articles in Wikipedia about small organizations, small charitable organizations, and such (See Category:Charities, Category:Foundations for examples) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As for EV, DLM, etc, Some sources refers to both organizations, sure. But that does not mean that sources do not make very specific distinctions between these. Many sources describe the DLM as defunct, for example, others refer to the DLM only, and others include information about both, while other only refer to the DLM.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering the circumstances, that defense of the article is not surprising. But we serve the readers better by consolidating coverage minor, non-notable organiztions into a logical format. If we had an article on every $1 million foundation Wikipedia would be overrun with vanity articles. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What circumstances, Will? More innuendo and assumptions? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The circumstances include the fact that you wrote "TPRF" and are its main contributor. It seems promotional, perhaps due to the fact that it's solely sourced to the foundaiton itself and to some press releases. Is this the best that Wikipedia can do? Vanity articles on personal foundations?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Take it to AfD if you think that is a vanity article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a merger is more appropriate than a deletion, which is why I'm proposing it as part of this general organizational plan. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is Wikipedia, which is not paper. See Atlantic_Philanthropies, Cultural_Initiatives_Foundation, DVDs_to_the_Desert, EMQ_Children_and_Family_Services, Food_Salvage ... just picking one from the first 5 letters of the alphabet. There are hundreds of articles on small charities in WP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we have your view point on this issue now. Thanks. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And we have yours. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Since we have established that EV is only a name change from DLM, I agree that we merge the two, it is the same entity we are referring to, And like any entity it changes over time, but it is still fundamentally the same. I had different views when I was younger too; I don't think my autobiography should be split into two books, one before I was twenty, and one after, that's a bit ridiculous. A re-direct would be used as well of course, And I think for chronological reasons, the DLM article should be moved into EV, since EV is the current iteration. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 23:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Criticism of, and Prem Rawat, should also be merged (reviewing sources appropriately first of course), neither article is so long that a merging would be unwieldy, and why are we forcing readers to go off to another article to find out "the other half" of the story. If I come to WP to look for "the scoop" on someone, I want all of it, not bits of it. Even The Pope and Mother Teresa have significant criticism sections in their articles, as do Deepak Chopra, Sun Myung Moon and Tony Robbins. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 23:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Who has established that? Sources describe the DML as a defunct religious movement. Elan Vital is not a movement. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, for one, the Government of Colorado, please see Elan Vital, you can also check out the lede at Divine Light Mission, last sentence. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 23:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I have a bit of a problem with the Teachings of Prem Rawat article. Since we are mainly now referring to "The Keys", and the Knowledge passed on through them is secret, how can we write any meaningful article about this? Either we shine some light on these teachings, or we mention them in passing inside the Prem Rawat article. I don't see why it really has an article of it's own at all. I guess that boils down to an agree to merge, with a lot of paring down. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 23:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Likewise, I have a problem with The Prem Rawat Foundation article as well. Perhaps if the article was more than a puff piece it would be better. From reading the article, it seems we might be able to include it, on its own, but as it stands now, there's very little in the way of sourcing, and what the heck is this doing here: "discussed on its website include the development of a facility in northern India where hundreds of free meals will be provided" I plan to fly to the moon someday, so what? Anyways, *if* that article can be cleaned up (basically, "done properly") I would say leave it as a stand-alone article. In its present form, unfortunately, I'd have to say scrap it, or add the few useful elements as a merge. I'd prefer it was sourced and fixed though. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 00:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The facility was built and is in operation, Maelefique . Maybe you can find some time and update the text? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * jossi, please pay a little more attention, as you should know, further discussion about the article itself should be done on its talk page, and in fact has been. Rumiton and I have already updated that text, your note here is superfluous. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 15:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh I missed that, thanks. I responded here because it is where you started the conversation about the facility. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I always thought the Teachings section here in the Prem Rawat article was a bit anaemic, so I could see potential benefits in merging Teachings of Prem Rawat with this article. The Criticism of Prem Rawat article is orphaned at present, with no link to it, so it would make sense to bring this material into this article, as long as this is done in an orderly fashion and with proper seeking of consensus on the talk page for what to include. As far as I can tell, Divine Light Mission and Elan Vital have a different style and have attracted a different kind of coverage, DLM being a historical and quite controversial mass/youth movement and Elan Vital being a somewhat more pared down organisation formed around Rawat, and certainly not a controversial youth movement. These differences seem significant enough to me to keep the two articles separate (I am sure we'll mention Elan Vital in the DLM article for the reader wanting to read on). As for The Prem Rawat Foundation, it seems like a borderline case, and I have no strong views either way. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 00:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayen, regarding the "criticism" article: we've been discussing which material is suitable to be merged into this article for the past month. If anyone has any more complaints about that material they should raise them on the article's talk page. I expect that we will want to substantially restructure the material so that we're adding it throughout this article as appropriate rather than lumping it together. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I am aware, we discussed Schnabel, and rewrote that to address various concerns. At the moment, we are discussing van der Lans. I agree that discussions seem to have gone on for some time, but I doubt that there is a background consensus on all the other sections of the Criticism article. If we just put everything in in one fell swoop, we'll immediately have a "situation" again. So I would suggest let's go slowly. I hope we'll end up with less discussion and less talk page scroll miles that way. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 20:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * DLM/EV is one and the same organization and must be treated as one article. The fact remains that Elan Vital is Divine Light Mission with a name change having one and the same exact same stated purpose(s), with the same articles of incorporation.   How the corporation is covered by sources or viewed by the public is immaterial to that fact and to keep separate articles is misleading and confusing to the reader.  Sylviecyn (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How the DLM is covered by sources is what is important. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi you are quick yourself to point out when sources are incorrect. If what Sylviecyn says is correct, maybe you can confirm it (I guess you are informed about the truth of this matter) and then everyone can see if there is a source that supports the facts. PatW (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) For all the talk page volume and edits currently being generated – this is the single (I would say only) most useful area in which to make progress. The fundamental failings of the Rawat articles (and they are dreadful) is STRUCTURAL. Until there is a resolution of the structural problem none of the enduring arguments will be settled.

Proposals as summarised

Criticism of Prem Rawat >>merge>> Prem Rawat. A substantial amount of what may classed as ‘criticism’ appears in sources that should properly be used in Prem Rawat, splitting the references into ‘neutral’ and ‘critical’ is a POV fork. Merger is essential.

The Prem Rawat Foundation >>merge>>Prem Rawat TPRF may or may not demand a WP article, however the relationship between Rawat and TPRF is too distant to make merger appropriate. Acknowledgement of the TPRF in Prem Rawat is clearly warranted but a detailed treatment of TPRF in the Rawat article would not be warranted, unless it were shown that Rawat was responsible for a large endowment that made TPRF possible or he plays a constructive role in the direction of the organisation. As it is TPRF was created and is run and funded by people other than Prem Rawat and a WP article should show that. Merger is therefore not warranted, although TPRF should perhaps be considered for deletion as not notable/significant.

Teachings of Prem Rawat < > and >>merge part>> Divine Light Mission >>merge part>> Prem Rawat  This presentation does not recognise the existing (absurd) complexity, the process in fact needs to be:  Teachings of Prem Rawat < > and >>merge part>> Divine Light Mission >>merge part>> Elan Vital >>merge part>> Prem Rawat In practice very little may transfer to  Divine Light Mission which should properly be referenced to the Teachings of Hans Rawat Hans Ji Maharaj. To the extent that Prem Rawat expounded the teachings of Hans Ji Maharaj, Prem Rawat’s teaching should be referenced to Rawat Hans Ji Maharaj. In fact there are few (none ?) sources that actually claim that Rawat ‘taught’ what his father taught, other than the four techniques of meditation. A further complication is that academic description of the techniques is given in relation to Prem Rawat not Hans Rawat. In this one respect Jossi’s criticism of Andries’ proposal being ‘arbitrary’ in its distribution of merged material is probably correct and description of the techniques should attach to Prem Rawat and not his father, and clumsily Hans Ji Maharaj would need to refer to Prem Rawat for a description of the meditation.

Divine Light Mission < > India and Western. Caution needs to be taken over the term Western in this context because there are implications of cultural as well a geographic meaning; this is doubly relevant as westernisation of both teaching and organisational style are reported by a number of source. The significance of this is that geographic change/differentiation was not contemporary with the reported cultural differentiation. (which may perhaps be the source of Jossi’s objections). There has already arisen a confusion over the Indian origin of DUO.

The process needs to be clearly defined in terms of:

1. Divine Light Mission (the organisation formed to further Hans Rawat’s teaching, solely located in India, and which was referenced to two unambiguous works of principle – the Hans Yog Prakash and the Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaj - and chronologically co-existing with organisations founded by followers of Prem Rawat for a period of less than three years.

2. Organisations founded/created by followers of Prem Rawat: a number being called Divine Light Mission and later being renamed Elan Vital; one in the UK being called Divine Light Mission which was closed down, after a new organisation called Elan Vital was created, one called DUO created as an Association in India, which was later renamed Raj Vidya Kender. None of these organisations can be shown in anyway to have been predicated upon the either the Hans Yog Prakash or the Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaj – and none of the sources refer to these works.

Jossi’s objections.

As I understand it Jossi is saying that if a source says Elan Vital – then that can only be used in a WP article called “Elan Vital”, and if a source says Divine Light Mission –then that can only be used in a WP article called Divine Light Mission. Jossi also raises the issue of DLM being described as a ‘movement’ and as being ‘defunct’, while he states that Elan Vital is not a ‘movement’. Logically this leads to:

1. Divine Light Mission = a movement

2. Divine Light Mission = the name adopted by unrelated organisations

3. Divine Light Mission = the name adopted by some related organisations

4. Divine Light Mission = the name adopted by some related organisations which changed their names to Elan Vital

5. Elan Vital = the name adopted by some related organisations

6. 2. and 3. above were for a time part of 1.

7. Points 4. and 3. above are (mostly) the same entities which = 5. which when combined as 4, 3, and 2. comprised a movement (1.) but as 5. do not form a movement.

8. The solution to the equation of Point 7. is that the separation of 3. from 2. saw the end of the movement at point 1. – This separation did indeed happen, in 1974, unfortunately the sources that Jossi refers to keep talking about a movement for years after 1974.

If the WP reader is ever to have a chance of understanding what is written about Rawat, then at some point all the above has to be disambiguated. Jossi’s position of source defined apportionment to arbitrarily named articles makes disambiguation impossible, with no separation of meaning between ‘movement’ or ‘organisation’ within one article, but a separation of meaning between articles, and no logical chronological consistency either within the articles or between them.

There is clearly an understanding amongst some editors that things have to change – my belief is that the way forward is on the basis of successive disambiguation progressed on a chronological basis starting with Hans Rawat’s DLM. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is already agreement to assess the material that is remains in the criticism article, for suitability of inclusion in this article.
 * The teachings article is a 14K article, 2,200 words sourced to 45 sources. Some editors have made the point that since the split of that article last year, the summary in this article may be lacking in substance and needs to be expanded. I do not see how it would be possible to merge all that material in here. Actually, there was a reason for the split, and that reason has not changed.
 * TPRF, and its article. Prem Rawat is named as the founder of that foundation ; the copyright for all the material from his speeches and teachings (e.g. [ see copyright notice) is with the foundation. Hence a mention of the foundation is most appropriate here. If the article is notable for having an article in Wikipedia or not, that discussion can be had at [[WP:AFD]] if anyone things that it is not notable enough. My view, is that it is, as per Notability_%28organizations_and_companies%29.
 * Regarding your opinions on splitting merging the different aspects of the DLM, that is exactly why we have WP:NOR in Wikipedia: To avoid the type arbitrary, and unsourced suggestions you are making. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Jossi are you saying that my applying logic to your stated position(s) is OR and therefore not permissable on a Talk page ? My suggestions are sourced to me, but if you mean that my arguments are not based on the relevance of the available academic sources then you have failed to take notice of my initial proposal to to split and merge - please read that again and explain why the references I gave are not relevant. As you seem to have missed stuff previously I'll take the liberty of repeating my assessment of your position, perhaps you would read that again and tell me where my logic is failing as well as exlaining why the existing structure is anything other than arbitrary. After all you are primarily responsible for the creation of that structure at time when the range of sources used was much smaller than is currently proposed - presumably you had a view about the structure that was not source dependant:

1. Divine Light Mission = a movement

2. Divine Light Mission = the name adopted by unrelated organisations

3. Divine Light Mission = the name adopted by some related organisations

4. Divine Light Mission = the name adopted by some related organisations which changed their names to Elan Vital

5. Elan Vital = the name adopted by some related organisations

6. 2. and 3. above were for a time part of 1.

7. Points 4. and 3. above are (mostly) the same entities which = 5. which when combined as 4, 3, and 2. comprised a movement (1.) but as 5. do not form a movement.

8. The solution to the equation of Point 7. is that the separation of 3. from 2. saw the end of the movement at point 1. – This separation did indeed happen, in 1974, unfortunately the sources that Jossi refers to keep talking about a movement for years after 1974. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That is original resarch. Bring forth any sources that make the distinctions you refer to, and we can talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The organisation changes are all about Prem Rawat gradually gaining more personal control
Jayen you seem to be sympathetic towards the POV that Jossi and TPRF and EV and Rawat have tried to assert here. Please be clear, there is a subtle way of wording things to make it look as if Rawat had no part in the forming or running of these organisations. Jossi and Momento have worked towards giving this impression. These movements did not 'form around Rawat' without his control except of course DLM which he was born into and tried more and more to wrest back from being the 'Youth Movement' that he felt was out of his control. Followers are keen to distance Rawat from responsibility from all the organisations that promote him. Have you noticed that? There is almost the pretence that they are just 'fan clubs'. The disconnect is because in fact they are bending over backwards to do his wishes. Rawat has much input on these things. Rawat has made it quite clear even recently, that he considers his past very dangerous to talk openly about. For example Rawat himself is largely responsible for the controversial idea that the Mahatmas brought all the troublesome Hindu concepts to the West and he has said he personally should not have to defend himself from any backlash. Here are some quotes from his recent 'training sessions' that illustrate his POV:


 * Prem Rawat: "When a lot of the Mahatmas came to the West, they brought with them immeasurable amount of concepts, and it kinda went wild, and there was no stopping it. The backlash of that, I had to directly bear. The bad news is that the concepts have really gotten us in a hole to this day, where we're still having to defend ourselves, which I find pathetic having to defend ourselves and say.. No these things are not true. So we cannot afford to perpetuate any concepts." 
 * "Whatever we forge for the future, we have to remember.. where.. we.. came from, and we have to remember, most importantly, how incredibly dangerous, incredibly dangerous, this stuff is.. Shooting your mouth off is not innocent by any stretch of the imagination."
 * He ordered old DLM and EV publications destroyed.
 * Elan Vital's lawyers have unsuccessfully tried to stop people publishing his old speeches and photos on the Internet.

Why does Rawat say it is 'pathetic' to have to defend himself? Or that followers should feel guilty if they talk about it? I think that this reflects a fear that the world is against him and he has to be extremely guarded about his past. Obviously Rawat felt badly received by the seventies press and that is probably why he became so publicity shy. Rawat, like any politician, would prefer to write his own history. Hence a spate of vanity publications and hence Jossi's presence here. Does anyone here think for one moment that it is merely a coincidence that Jossi was Rawat's personal webmaster before coming here? If you think that DLM, Elan Vital and now TPRF are such separate, distinctive movements then consider this:  Rawat has simply changed his presentation and goals over time and emphasises this by creating different organisations. Essentially they are run by the same people (his same followers) and he is ultimately in control. In my opinion Maelefique is quite right that it is wrong to keep separating all these things which should all be under one heading - Prem Rawat. These are his organisations. People like Jayen want the article not to be insulting towards the subject (movement) and seem prepared to go along to some extent with Jossi's POV to preserve a respectful attitude. In my opinion that is not an appropriate outcome (although of course we should not be disrespectful). Others want a broader, less biased treatment which by it's nature (not from any malevolent intent) could conceivably be a little offensive to Rawat and his followers. Rawat is caught between his desire to spread his religion to the world and the desire to be an extremely private, even secretive movement. This is surely the dilemma we see played out here. In my view, if Rawat wants a presence here then he has to accept that accuracy may contradict some of his propaganda. This is not a pro or anti site. Like any person in the public eye he may need to accept that aspects of his life have been controversial. That's life. It is not our job to paint followers critique-free picture or kao tow to the way TPRF, DLM, EV want to pretentiously distinguish themselves. We should present these organisations chronologically under Prem Rawat and make it clear that they have evolved to become more controlled by Prem Rawat as time passed. We might describe (using legitimate sources) how these organisations have different functions and appearances but how they are essentially organisations to promote Prem Rawat's message. I don't know whether there should be separate articles as well. PatW (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am under no illusion that Rawat is unaware of his organiation's activities. In fact, Momento has quite forcefully made the point over in the DLM article that Rawat was keen to take control of DLM and assert his ideas. Thanks for the background info though. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 20:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

1

 * On June 17, 1971, during his school holidays, Rawat flew to England alone. His arrival attracted substantial media interest. On June 20 he spoke at the Glastonbury Fayre, and on July 17, after brief trips to Paris and Heidelberg, flew to Los Angeles to begin an American tour.
 * Pryor, The Survival of the Coolest, p. 148.
 * Melton, J. Gordon. Entry "DIVINE LIGHT MISSION", subtitle "Controversy" in Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America. Garland, 1986 (revised edition), ISBN 0-8240-9036-5 pp. 144–5

The Survival of the Coolest appears to concern another "Maharaj Ji" (perhaps the guru of Ram Dass), not Prem Rawat or his father. The "Ji" in that book wears a Sikh-style turban and is never described as a child or young person even though the action is set in the late 1960s. Neither that book nor Melton mention anything about Glastonbury, Paris, Heidelberg, or school holidays. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * These sources may have been conflated and mixed up during the last shuffle. It would not be difficult to find the correct sources for these statements. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Glastonbury source:


 * ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The error predates any recent shuffles. The assertions were added without any source by Marvin Khan in October 2005.. You soon added the Pryor citation for the assertion about drug use. Then in May 2006 Momento deleted the text about drug use and so made it appear the Pryor citation supported the Heidelberg, etc., material (this deletion of material with retention of orphaned citations seems to happen a lot). So this mistake was due to Marvin Khan, Jossi, Momento, and every editor who didn't check their work. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that happens. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's an argument for a thorough review/rewrite of the article when the protection is lifted. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

2
Thanks, that sources at least some of it. Here's another similar problem: This is far more detail than Melton gives. I presume there's another source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In September 1971 the U.S. Divine Light Mission (DLM) was established in Denver, Colorado. In October, Rawat returned to India to celebrate his father's birthday, and in 1972 came back to the West, this time accompanied by his mother, eldest brother Satpal, and an entourage of mahatmas and other Indian supporters. A festival which DLM held in Montrose, Colorado was attended by 2,000 people.
 * Melton, J. Gordon. Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America. pp. 141–2. Entry: Divine Light Mission
 * Is any of that text disputed? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, but we don't want material that's unverifiable in the article. Do we? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless is disputed/challenged (per WP:V). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

3
Does this reporter have a name? Did he publish his report in any publication? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 *  "I was told that probably the best question to ask you, out of sincerity, is: 'Who are you?' Maharaj Ji: "... really I can't say who I am. But, though, there is a very basic thing, what I feel about myself. And that is that people have been claiming me as God or as Jesus or so on, and, ah, many television people have been asking this question, and this is an interesting question of course. I thought maybe you will be interested in the answer. I am not Jesus and I am not God or so on, but I am just a humble servant of God, and I am preaching this Knowledge, and it's ideal of humanity. I don't want to form a small sect or a religion. It's an open thing to all. It's for all casts, all creeds, all colors. And man is human, and it's OK he can receive it. And it's something that is internal, something that does not interfere with any religion. And this is the highest thing that I am teaching, about the people of this time, today. I don't claim myself to be God. I don't claim myself to be something like that, but I can claim I can show you God."
 * 43 Reporter at Montrose, Colorado, 25 July, 1972
 * In my notes I have material from an interview by a reporter that took place in Montrose, CO on July 25 1972 that matches that text, bur my notes does not say were it was published. I will need to research this. In any case, there are other sources with similar statements. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What material in the article is based on that source? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For the material in the article, you can use this source (my highlight): Maharaj Ji teaches that God is the source of all life. "God is an omniscient power that is hidden in the secret recesses of all living things. ..." The guru claims that he alone has the key to the knowledge of the source of God. He has promised his premies that with this key (his meditative techniques), they can get in touch with this source. His God is, then, an energy that is always present and cannot be removed by temporal circumstances. Maharaj Ji does not claim to give God to his devotees, but to put them in touch with the God that has been present in them all along. Stonner, C. & Parke J. All God's Children ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * And also: The guru does not claim to be God, but claims that through teaching his followers ("Premies") meditation and discipline, he can put them in touch with the God who has been with them all along. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That goes way beyond what the unknown reporter writing in the unknown newspaper wrote. The quote from the interview doesn't even mention the mother. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Despite his denial in a July, 1972 interview of any belief that he was the Messiah, pre-existing millennial expectations were fostered partly by his mother, whose talks were full of references to her son's divine nature, and partly by Rawat himself who generally encouraged whatever view was held by people.
 * The text about "pre-existing millennial expectations" is from another source if I recall. Will have to dig it up. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

4
Wikiquote is obviously unacceptable as a source (the entry there is unsourced). Besides that, the text is making conclusions which should be cited to a secondary source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In accordance with Sant precepts Rawat has never developed a systematic doctrine, and the core of his teaching has remained the process of self-discovery, summed up by his statement, "Receive this Knowledge and know God within yourself. That pure energy, God, is within your own heart".
 * http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat#1970s Peace Bomb satsang], 11 October 1970, India Gate, New Delhi, India (translated from Hindi)
 * That source is not appropriate for that text, but there are many sources available that can be used for that material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Following his death, Shri Hans Ji appointed the youngest of his four sons, Sant Ji as the next Perfect Master...
Gosh, and I thought the hard-headed secularists here didn't believe in divine power. :D Rumiton (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

DLM article additions

 * I've added good detail from the DLM article. I haven't removed any existing material.Momento (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Re. "I haven't removed any existing material":
 * You removed "Maharaj" and "by his family and his father's followers" from "When his father died in 1966, the eight-year-old Sant Ji Maharaj (as Prem Rawat was then known) was accepted by his family and his father's followers as the new Satguru."
 * You removed "Most of the mahatmas either returned to India or were dismissed.", nonetheless referenced to Downton.
 * So, that's the lies.
 * There are other remarks too, e.g. inserting repetition of the same material (why?) - e.g.
 * How many times does his mother return to India? Added again here, but was already in Prem Rawat (1st paragraph).
 * Is this an exercise in how many Downton references can be added consecutively?
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice... Less that a few hours that the article is unprotected and this whole thing starts again? If one believes that an editor has made a "sloppy edit", rather than revert his work, why no fix/improve upon it? This type of behavior is the one that caused numerous problems before, and would be best avoided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Aside from being sloppy and with an untruthful edit summary (it looks like information was removed), if the edit in question does not add anything relevant to the topic it should probably be removed, and then discussed if necessary. In fact, since just about everything here seems so contentious why not discuss things first? That doesn't seem like such a burden if it helps remove this type of behaviour. Also, generally speaking (and of course there will be some overlap) DLM info does not need to be repeated here, that just bloats up the article unnecessarily. The information is already in the DLM article. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 15:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Rawat was never known as "Sant Ji Maharaj" and is not referred to as such in the cited sources. Was "accepted" doesn't need "by his family and his father's followers". Cited nine sources of which two were Downton is hardly a crime. And I apologize for leaving out the mahatmas, an unintentional omission and having Mataji go to India twice was also a mistake.Momento (talk) 10:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty certain Prem Rawat signed his name as Sant Ji Maharaj. Maybe someone can confirm.PatW (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * According to Divine Times Volume 2, No 23 - December 11 1973 - The legal name of Guru Maharaj Ji is Sant Ji Maharaj, Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj Also I see I was correct that he signed his name as Sant Ji Maharaj. Here is a letter which was published in the "Divine Times" Volume 3 Issue 4, October 15, 1974. Incidentally these magazines are available in the library not just at ex-premie.org  where there is another letter from  the 'Special Millenium '73 Edition' of the Divine Times, page 2, under the heading 'A Festival for the Whole World' PatW (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1975: "Proclamation for 1975, signed Sant Ji Maharaj the name by which Prem Rawat was known at that time. Divine Times (Vol.4 Issue.1, February 1, 1975)" (sorry, I have only a reference to a sister project for that: Prem Rawat) --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * He may have been called that after he became Guru but not before. As per U. S. Department of the Army, Religious Requirements and Practices of Certain Selected Groups: A Handbook for Chaplains (2001) pp.1-5, The Minerva Group, ISBN 0-89875-607-3 "Following his death, Shri Hans Ji appointed the youngest of his four sons, Sant Ji as the next Perfect Master and therefore he assumed the head of the Divine Light Mission as decreed by his father."Momento (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So what's your point? Do you think the article should not explain that 'Sant Ji Maharaj' is a historic pseudonym of Prem Rawat? PatW (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is the source cited says his was known as "Sant JI".Momento (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

geroutiniseerd
Can one of the Dutch speakers explain this word? Is it even Dutch? "Routinised charisma" makes no sense in English. Rumiton (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't Dutch, if you keep to the Green Booklet, that's why I had originally put "[sic]" in the Dutch text, when I first translated it over a year ago (the translation included here is still basically mine, see /scholars). In the mean while we had a discussion at Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat, which made clear it was simply the Dutch version of Charismatic leadership (a direct reference to the Weberian terminology regarding charismatic authority). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I just read up on it, but now two things become apparent:
 * 1. It needs some serious contextualising if it is to remain in the article. As I said, the term is quite meaningless without the context.
 * 2. The sentence from the above article, "However, the constant challenge that charismatic authority presents to a particular society will eventually subside as it is incorporated into that society" seems absurd when applied to Prem Rawat. He has, so all sources tell us, never been "incorporated" into any society so his charisma has not been "routinised." This would be an exceptional claim. Rumiton (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Routinised charisma
I intend to delete the sentence containing this expression as misleading. "Routinised charisma" is a specific term from divinity studies unknown to most English speakers. It is poorly rendered as "inherited" charisma, and as it actually involves the cultural acceptance of a previous minority sect it has no relevance to Prem Rawat. It is, at best, an exceptional claim. Rumiton (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Rumiton, please cease the old bad habit of fragmenting discussion by creating new talk page sections for topics that are still active in other talk page sections, see above (which you also started). [update: talk page sections merged 16:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)]
 * Re. "Routinised charisma" is a specific term from divinity studies - incorrect, it is a (stock) sociological concept: Max Weber who popularized the terminology was a sociologist. Schnabel, who is also a sociologist, makes a sociological analysis. "Charismatic authority", and its sub-terminology, is part of a sociological analysis of types of authority, not limited to religious figures (although Jesus is indicated as an archetypal example of this type of authority - along Mussolini and Hitler who respond to the same leadership type).
 * Re. unknown to most English speakers - The issue can be solved by hyperlinking: routinised charisma, which renders as: routinised charisma.
 * Re. It is poorly rendered as "inherited" charisma - it is not "rendered" as "inherited" charisma. Inheritance is one of the mechanisms by which the charisma of a charismatic leader can become routinized, see Charismatic leadership. This is the specific routinization mechanism Schnabel indicates for Rawat, who "inherited" the satguru qualification from his father. Note that Schnabel writes "geroutiniseerd charisma (erfopvolging)", translated in the footnote as "routinized charisma (hereditary succession)" - maybe we should stay closer to Schnabel's wording as less confusing?
 * Re. it actually involves the cultural acceptance of a previous minority sect - well, if a million people come to see you when you're celebrating the person whose charisma you inherited, then it's maybe not so absurd to claim some "inherited" routinized charisma might have been going on. But as I explained at Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat Schnabel does not really study the Indian episode of Rawat, thus according to Schnabel: for the followers in America and Europe [the routinized (inherited) charisma] is hardly significant, or as it is summarized in the article currently: this was hardly a factor for how he was perceived by his Western following. That claim by Schnabel is, in fact, the same as what you try to say via the OR you presented on this talk page. Well, what's "exceptional" about it then? It's what a normal sociologist's analysis would claim. If you want to test it for WP:REDFLAG: Fringe theories/Noticeboard is still open: I suppose you could start a new subsection to that section if you'd like to have more input. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Refs
Francis, the ref (2) I deleted made no mention of the name Sant Ji Maharaji. It added nothing of value to the lead. Rumiton (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "[...] where Sant Ji Maharaj addressed the large gathering [...]" is in that ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat#cite_note-Navbharat_Times-1 --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I see. Sorry. Rumiton (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits
These edits have multiple problems, which I will address  later on. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Snipped PA --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry? Since when a comment on an edit is a personal attack? Please do not refactor anymore my comments about edits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * From WP:NPA: Comment on content, not on the contributor That is what I have done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see a personal attack either, but I also don't see any point to your original posting. If you're just saying "these edits are bad but I won't say why" that's unhelpful. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My comment was placed to alert other editors like yourself to comment on these edits. I have some pressing private issues to attend, and will comment on these edits as soon as I can. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Best wishes for resolving your private issues. In the future it'd be better if you waited until you can give a useful description of purported problems rather than just posting an "I don't like it" message. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Problematic edits
I do not have time for a thorough review of all these edits, but these are the more critical:
 * 1) Rawat, rejecting theoretical knowledge as useless,[3] has been criticized for lack of intellectual content.[17][18][19] He is also criticized for leading a sumptuous lifestyle.[20][8]s replacing Rawat, whose emphasis is on an individual subjective experience rather than on a body of dogma,[3][8] has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourse,[17][18][19] and for leading a sumptuous lifestyle.[20][8]
 * The edit eliminates a source, and uses an opinion of one source asserting it as it was a fact. The previous version was more accurate and NPOV, and I gather it had some consensus behind it. Changes to the lead, in particular, given the editorial disputes that exist, would be best discussed in talk first
 * 1) From 1996 former followers speak out via the internet.[112][113]
 * Violates BLP. Sources used for that statement are sourced to self-published websites, one of them an anonymous, NN site.

Given that we are engaged in ann orderly debate about these articles with the assistance of the MedCab, which all editors have been informed of its proceedings, it would be wise to engage there rather than make changes to the lead without discussion and introduce additional disputes. We have our hands full already.

I would encourage all participants, to cool off and accept the fact that we need to reach consensus on this and related articles. Fighting for our preferred versions of the article will not produce the results we need. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * None of these topics is on the agenda at mediation. I'f you'd like to include them then feel free. I agree that edit warring back and forth is unhelpful. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Re. 1: "I gather it had some consensus behind it", no: it was edit-warred leading up to the recent ArbCom case:. I'm restoring the version that had more consensus, and was more or less stable for several months before the final edit war leading up to the ArbCom case.

Please take it from there. I prefer the version I had made yesterday. The source eliminated was only proof for the organisations' take on the issue, not Rawat's. "uses an opinion of one source asserting it as it was a fact" is unclear. "The previous version was more accurate and NPOV", definitely not, and it is an OR version: combining "whose emphasis is on an individual, subjective experience rather than on a body of dogma" and "has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content [...]" is bringing two unrelated issues together as if they weren't. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, I think the whole intro is poor and I'm not a part of any consensus for either version. I think it should be re-written from scratch. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Very nice...
I can see that editors have rushed in and got Momento blocked. Round trips to WP:AE, will now become the currency of this page? I was under the understanding that we were conducting an orderly debate with the help of the Mediation Cabal, but it seems that certain editors rather than participate in the mediation debates, have chosen to force their hand via WP:AE. This does not bode well, IMO. 02:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There does seem to be an anti-Momento bias here. Francis appears to have called him a liar in the above DLM article additions section ("that's the lies"), and yesterday PatW called him a "vandal", an "absurd POV pusher" and without "social conscience". (He self-reverted, but it stood for long enough to make his point.)

"It hasn't taken Momento long to get back into his old unwelcome tricks ie. removing material which has been discussed many times. When is someone going to stop this absurd POV pushing? And how? Will, you should know perfectly well what this vandal's standard is by now. Anything that is critical about his guru gets removed at the earliest possible convenience. What a complete farce. Also the guy has been criticised until the cows come home by almost everyone who comes here (visa vi the Arbcom evidence) and yet he carries on without a hint of embarassment. What does that tell me? He is probably working for Prem Rawat and is just following orders. Anyone who was an unbiased editor would have been long ago piqued by social conscience into being more reasonable. Also Momento is clearly laughing at you and Francis when you ask him your polite little questions. Do you really think he's going to give you a sensible answer? No he is plainly delighted at your impotence to stop him doing exactly what his bosses want."


 * In neither case was an objection raised by Administrators or Arbitrators. Please be more vigilant, guys. This slackness can not lead to a good article. Rumiton (talk) 03:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I posted the above at midday and, regretting my tone, deleted it before 2. That's under 2 hours-hardly a long time. It seems rather mean for you to repost it. I would call that a 'personal attack' too.PatW (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Call it what you like, you can expect more of the same. The record shows you have contributed nothing of value to the article and have constantly sniped at those trying to improve it. On 26 December, John Brauns made a clear and culpable threat of blackmail against editors, then "apologised." The threat still existed. You are doing the same thing with your highly derogatory remarks, and reverting them isn't enough. If you ever do this again, whether or not administrators do anything about it, I will. Rumiton (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What record?PatW (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Momento did not discuss deleting the criticism section before doing so twice. Editor of this page should know that that is unacceptable and contrary to consensus. That said, let's try to stick to discussing the article here rather than each other. Personal attacks are inappropriate on any talk page. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In retrospect it was probably a mistake to unprotect this page. I suggest reverting it back to the last "bad" version from when it was protected. There've been a lot of changes with little discussion and no consensus. That's not helpful. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. I will be out for a couple of days, so please revert to that diff and protect (or rewuest via RFPP) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hearing no objection, I'll revert to April and request protection. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * On reflection I've left it as it was, pending input from other editors. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the problems need to be discussed one by one. Here is one...

Teachings
I don't believe it is necessary to have about 30% of the material in this section. It is all quoted, or paraphrased, from the Teachings of article, which is referenced right at the beginning of this section. If someone wants to find out about more, it is one click away. This duplication of material seems to be spreading throughout the PR articles which only serves to make them appear longer than they should be. This section should summarize his teachings, which can be done quite easily by fluffing out something like "Originally drawn from Indian traditions, PR's teachings have evolved into series of meditation techniques that seek to help the practitioner achieve an inner peace by turning one's senses inward instead of outward. These methods are not indicative of any particular religion or lifestyle. The are subjective to each individual, and expected to be practiced and comprehended privately.". Suggestions, thoughts, flames, etc invited and expected. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 15:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Summary style, the "teachings" article should be briefly summarized. I'd think a paragraph would be enough. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm out for the evening, but unless someone else beats me to it, I'll see what I can do with it tomorrow. (Monday)-- Mael e fique (t a lk) 00:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is correct to say that PR's teachings have "evolved into" the four techniques, rather that an accretion of Indiana that had built up around them was removed. The four techniques were always central to his teachings, as they were to his father's. Rumiton (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Why the arbitrary decision about one paragraph? An article may need more than one paragraph to be properly summarized, and I believe that is the case here. WP:SUMMARY ask us to summarize the article, and one paragraph may not do. I would suggest applying WP:LEAD in which it is asked that an article is summarized in four paragraphs. If an article can be summarized in four paragraphs for a full article, that could be the same measure applied for a summary spin-off article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:LEAD says "up to four paragraphs". The actual lead is a short paragraph:
 * Prem Rawat teaches a process of self-discovery using four meditation techniques that he claims will allow the practitioner to experience peace, joy and contentment with regular practice.[1][2][3] He calls these techniques Knowledge and claims that Knowledge will take "all your senses that have been going outside all your life, turn them around and put them inside to feel and to actually experience you."[4] Practitioners are asked not to reveal these techniques to anyone else.[5]
 * The simplest solution would be to copy that here. If that's not complete maybe we shold make it complete and then copy that here. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The lead of that article needs work as it is too short and does not summarize the article properly. I agree with you that interested editors can  first go there to create a good lead and then copy it here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:ArbCom enforcement: Momento
FYI:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement. Interested editors may want to add their views. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There, his charisma was primarily the result of careful staging supported by a whole organization
This is very far from what the Dutch source says. I will change it tomorrow. God, this article is a freaking pigsty. Rumiton (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we have the Schnabel/charisma related stuff in one talk page section please? See above, thanks.
 * I disagree that Jayen would've done a bad job when he summarized the following (see Schnabel footnote, quotation from p. 101-102, bolding added):"Tegelijkertijd betekent dit echter [dat] charismatisch leiderschap als zodanig tot op zekere hoogte ensceneerbaar is. Maharaj Ji is daar een voorbeeld van. In zekere zin gaat het hier om geroutiniseerd charisma (erfopvolging), maar voor de volgelingen in Amerika en Europa geldt dat toch nauwelijks: zij waren bereid in juist hem te geloven en er was rond Maharaj Ji een hele organisatie die dat geloof voedde en versterkte."translated as:"At the same time, this means however that charismatic leadership, as such, can be staged to a certain degree. Maharaj Ji is an example of this. Certainly, Maharaj Ji's leadership can be seen as routinized charisma (hereditary succession), but for the followers in America and Europe this is hardly significant: they were prepared to have faith specifically in him and Maharaj Ji was embedded in a whole organisation that fed and reinforced that faith."...without excluding pre-emptively that improvements to the summary wouldn't be possible. Please see also discussion at Talk:Criticism of Prem Rawat, where various alternatives were considered. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:ArbCom enforcement: jossi
See Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Teaching section

 * I cleaned up the Teaching section and corrected several errors but it was immediately reverted by Francis.


 * Here are the errors he re-inserted -


 * 1. Lipner doesn't refer to "dogma" or " direct inner experience' but to "ritual" and "true religion is a matter of loving and surrendering to God who dwells in the heart" as I corrected
 * 2. Galanter source refers to premies giving satsang not Rawat which I corrected.
 * 3. Naming Van der lans and Derks is undue weight, which I corrected.
 * 4. Inserted material than has been tagged "citation needed" for more than a month, which I corrected.
 * And it reads very badly, so I have reverted back.Momento (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have relocated the material about his "teachings" from the "Leaving India" section to the "Teachings" section. Isolated where it was, it gave an incomplete picture without any supporting context. I have deleted the Time quote and the Collier quote as undue weight and they are not necessary in the "teachings" section. I am certain I have not lost any important material in the move.Momento (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Momento, can you please add the citations when you add material? I mean here:. I don't understand why you deleted the Time material. How much weight is undue weight? What's your standard? Why are some sources attributed but for others it's undue weight? Moving on, this edit which deletes a source and adds material says "see talk", but I don't see the discussion. Last but not least, this edit deletes sourced material with the note, "Removed misquoted Galanter". I tried to find "Galanter, Mark M.D. Cults and new religious movements: a report of the committee on psychiatry and religion of the American Psychiatric Association. 1989, ISBN 0-89042-212-5 p. 20", but page 20 doesn't mention the subject. Which page are you reading that is misquoted? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Galanter is here or here, page 21.Momento (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are from Cults: Faith, Healing and Coercion. The citation is to Cults and new religious movements: a report of the committee on psychiatry and religion of the American Psychiatric Association, an entirely different work. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It only took me a couple of mintues to track this down. Jossi provided the source, and Francis added it. Jossi posted: Then Francis summarized it as: That certainly isn't a misquote or bad summary. The mistake, to the extent that there was one, when Francis used Jossi's proffered source without checking the information himself. It appears that the actual citation is to Cults: Faith, Healing and Coercion, and the text is on page 21. So the material is proprely summarized/quoted and should not have been deleted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Galanter: It was something of a polemic interspersed with parables, and because members were bright and sophisticated, these discourses tended to be engaging, making use of both Hindu mythology and Western philosophy.
 * According to Mark Galanter Rawat's early western discourses were something of a polemic interspersed with parables, and because members were bright and sophisticated, these discourses tended to be engaging, making use of both Hindu mythology and Western philosophy.


 * Having been otherwise preoccupied, I don't know whether this still needs clearing up or not, but Momento is right. Here is the complete quote from Galanter:
 * Galanter is referring to satsang, not to Rawat's discourses. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 13:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this the Fahlbusch source for the rivalry? I don't see any mention of it there. Can you give the citation and quote the source please?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct source, Fahlbusch writes, "they helped him to eliminate rival claims from his own family". Chronologically it appears between the succession and his first trip to the west (which is incorrectly given as 1969).Momento (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Can you please address the other issues above? ·:· Will Beback  ·:·

Criticism section
Why was this material moved to the "Teachings" article? The text addresses Rawat as a leader, and doesn't refer to his teachings. ·:· Will Beback ·:·
 * In 1982, the Dutch sociologist Dr. Paul Schnabel described described Rawat as a pure example of a charismatic leader. Comparing Rawat to Osho, he argued that personal qualities alone are not enough to explain charismatic authority – while he characterized Rawat as materialistic, pampered and intellectually unremarkable compared to Osho, he found Rawat no less of a charismatic leader than Osho. Schnabel stated that Rawat's charisma was in a certain sense routinized (inherited) charisma, but that this was hardly a factor for how he was perceived by his Western following. There, his charisma was primarily the result of careful staging supported by a whole organization. Schnabel observed, referring to research by Van der Lans, that among his Western students, Rawat appeared to stimulate an uncritical attitude, giving them an opportunity to project their fantasies of divinity onto his person. 


 * Because it comes from an article about "Between stigma and charisma: new religious movements and mental health" and compares the "charismatic leadership" of Rawat and Osho. It is not about Rawat as an individual, it is about Rawat as a "charismatic leader" or teacher.Momento (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If this isn't about Rawat as a leader then we'd need to remove all mention of him as a leader. This article is about Rawat, and his notability derives from his leadership of the DLM. The Teachings article is not about the personal charisma of Rawat. In a sequence of edits you deleted the entire "criticism" section. I've restored the material. Please do not delete sourced material that's required to make this article NPOV and balanced. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly Rawat's notability doesn't come as a result of his leadership of DLM, DLM notability exists solely as a result of Rawat. We have several articles related to Rawat - his father, his teachings, Elan Vital, DLM. An isolated paragraph on Rawat function as a leader of a religion belongs iin the "Teachings" article.Momento (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The DLM had a million followers before Prem Rawat became its head. It was as the head of the DLM that Rawat achieved prominence. The Schnabel material is about Rawat the person, not about teachings. This doesn't explain why you deleted the entire "criticism" section twice. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your revert for the following reasons.
 * 1. Mishler's comments are already presented in the "Coming of Age" section - "In the mid-1970s several ex-members became vocal critics of Rawat's movement, including Robert Mishler, the former president of DLM.[59][60] A number of these critics made the standard anti cult charges of brainwashing and mind control".[61][62]
 * 2. Kent's comments are already covered in the "Teachings" section - "Some journalists and scholars have described Rawat's teachings as lacking in intellectual content".
 * 3. Schnabel's lengthy comment should be in the "Teachings of Prem Rawat" article, where I put it.
 * 4: Simply having a section called "Criticism" violates NPOV, particularly - "Segregation" of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself;.Momento (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for supplying reasons, but those are not sufficient or accurate.
 * 1. The actual criticisms by Mishler are not contained in that earlier mention, they are just referred to.
 * 2. Same problem - Kent's actual criticism is not included, it's summarized along with countless other scholars. Your edit summary claimed you were moving the material, but all you did was add the citation to exsting material elsewhere.
 * 3. Per above, there's no consensus for that. As I've already said, that material is about Rawat's charisma and leadership not his teachings.
 * 4. A problem with the heading is not an excuse for deleting the section. It was named "reception" which is very neutral. If you don't like the heading then change the heading rather than deleting sourced, neutral material. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section (continued)
Where are we currently with regard to the idea of merging Criticism of Prem Rawat into this article? That article (i.e. the Criticism article) had a "mergeto" tag until a few days ago, for merging it into this article (i.e. the Prem Rawat article). Not so long ago someone also replaced the mergefrom tag in Prem Rawat by a main tag in the "Criticism" subsection (now deleted).

Well, one of the two, either the idea is still to merge, then it would be best to indicate that in both articles with an appropriate "merge" tag; either we're no longer sporting that idea, and then I suppose the only practical solution would be to follow summary style for a criticism section in this article, while keeping a separate criticism article.

The situation as created by Momento (by removing an appropriate link to the Criticism article, whether in a "merge" type of tag or in a "main" type of tag) is of course untenable. Suggestions? I'd go for the "main" tag again under the current circumstances, but that sort of implies to have a "Criticism" section title in the Prem Rawat article. Or is there currently still a broad support for the merge option? --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Material from that article has already been merged in to other articles where appropriate. The bulk of the remaining material is in "Observations from scholars", and I don't think that material should be merged "as-is." It's a set of sumamries of views by scholars, but it incorrectly gives the improession of summarizing those scholars views in toto. Doing so correctly would be impossible, or at least too lengthy. I suggest we review the source material and add viewpoints from scholars and other reliable sources to the relevant topics in this bio rather than in a separate section. The other parts of that article, "Criticism in the media" and "Criticism by former members", could probably be merged in with little or no change. I don't think anyone really wants a "criticism" article anymore, we just have to make sure that all relevant material is included in this or another article in a neutral and balanced manner. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but my question was in fact entirely practical, on the short term do we use:
 * main,
 * or do we use:
 * mergefrom
 * on top of the section that groups some of the criticism? Whether we will still be grouping criticism in a few weeks time is a different question, but doesn't solve the current problem of the lack of a decent link between two Rawat-related articles (both regarding the person). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My suggestion is to do neither. I suggest we just go ahead and merge the last two sections in here, and redirect the title to this article. I don't think the remaining material is well-suited to direct merging into this article. After that we can add to this article whatever viewpoints we find that apply to biographical topics.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a real mess. First the article is restored to pre-Arbcom state, and then that is partially undone. Now there are discussions about completing the merge, when we have not been able to stabilize the article. What do you think would be the result? Would it be stable or would it start another set of roundtrips to WP:AE? What happened to the mediation? Are we serious about it or it is just a smoke and mirrors exercise? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't make sense to wait for the article to stabilize before making changes to it. As long as we proceed towards better articles then threats of WP:AE are unneccessary. If editors get into revert wars over material then WP:AE may be required. Mediation is not a reason to stop editing. As for the topic at hand, do you have a specific reason to object to moving the material in "Criticism in the media" and "Criticism by former members" to this article, and then redirecting "Criticism of Prem Rawat" here? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If there's no specific objection I'll do that. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I object. To any links prohibited by BLP and EL policy.Momento (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The material that I've outlined doesn't contain any prohibited links. Any other objections? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good. I'll add some detail when you bring it over.Momento (talk) 04:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's hardly a case of assuming good faith (WP:AGF if you need the link) when you automatically assume that another editor's work will immediately need additions from you once it's done. However, it's probably a nice change to see you adding text for a change. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 04:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You wait til you see the "praise" section.Momento (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That last remark sounds like an intent to disrupt the article to prove a point, which I hope isn't the case. Part of the "reception" material is a description of Rawat's following, which is an indication of the positive view many have of the subject. Anyway, I'll go ahead with moving the material over. The remaining summaries of scholars can be moved to a subpage in case editors find anything useful for this or another article. Hopefully this outcome will give us a NPOV article here and address the complaints about having a "Criticism of" article about a living person. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

...whose emphasis is on an individual subjective experience rather than on a body of dogma...
Why does this keep getting deleted in favour of a negatively slanted version? A host of sources, from Hunt to Hummel, tell us this. Rumiton (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hummel, Reinhart. Indische Mission und neue Frömmigkeit im Westen. Religiöse Bewegungen in westlichen Kulturen, Stuttgart 1980, ISBN 3-17-005609-3, pp.76-77: "Eine systematisch entwickelte Lehre hat die Divine Light Mission weder zur Zeit des Vaters Śhrī Hans noch des Sohnes besessen. Beide haben darin eher einen Vorzug als einen Mangel gesehen...Von ihr bestimmt ist die Ablehnung äußerlicher Rituale und Zeremonien und die Forderung, das Göttliche im eigenen Inneren zu suchen." I will provide a translation if you need it. Can you suggest a better way to represent these words in the lead? Rumiton (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what Hummel says, or why folks are editng the text you list. But from my recent readings on the subject that summary appears mostly correct but obtuse. Rather than going back and forth between competing versions why not try to bridge the difference with a third version that will be acceptable to everyone? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. We need to start accepting the fact that we need to work toward consensus, and not towards our favorite version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That is why I asked, "Can you (anyone) suggest a better way to represent these words in the lead?" I don't think I can. If there is no suggested improvement I will reinstate them, in the fond hope they might remain this time. Rumiton (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC) I also disagree with you that the sentence is "obtuse." Perhaps you are referring to the connection between the perceived lack of intellectual content in his teachings and the emphasis on "an individual subjective experience." To me this is the crux of the matter. Rumiton (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If other editors disagree with your edit then just restoring the same material isn't helpful. I suggest drafting a version which encompasses both points of view. And if you want editors of the English Wikipedia to discuss a German-language source then a translation would be helpful. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, here is my attempt, though the content is echoed by many other sources. The word Lehre is crucial, as it can mean either teachings or dogma, depending on context. I would say here it falls somewhere between. As a translator, I would solve this problem by using both English words alternately. Neither in the time of the father, Shri Hans, nor in that of the son did the Divine Light Mission possess a systematically developed set of teachings, both seeing [any] dogma as being more likely to be a handicap than an advantage...certainly from this (the Sant tradition) comes the rejection of external rituals and ceremonies and the call to seek God in one's inner self. Hence the wording that heads this section. Any other suggestions? Rumiton (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If the translation is difficult then why don't we stick with English language sources? We certainly have plenty that describe Rawat's beliefs. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All translations are difficult, and contain ambiguity. I have suggested several times in the past only using English language sources. However, these statements re the deliberate lack of intellectual content in the Sant Mat philosophy etc are echoed by Hunt and a bunch of others. I have reinstated the sentence. Rumiton (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

<<<My comments have been, for some time, above in. Another "fragmentation of discussion" example, not caused by me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The Los Angeles fire brigade
I intend to get rid of this breath-takingly irrelevant nonsense. Any objections? Rumiton (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you quote the section you are referring to instead of making everyone go through the article to find it please? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 16:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any mention of a fire brigade. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Rumiton is probably referring to this passage: Described in the press as a "lavish hilltop estate", it was damaged in a 1978 brush fire.[53][54] Controversy around a helipad on the property[55] 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.[56] Ah, I remember it well! As a group effort, it was worthwhile. But I don't think it is that important to the general reader looking for information on Rawat in this article. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If that's the case I would object strongly to the deletion of that material which was drafted as a group effort based on reliable sources. As for its importance to readers, we have no way of judging that fact. We should use reliable sources as our guide for what to include in this article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You may have made this point before, Will, and others may have said, "What about intelligent editing?" Rumiton (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) Ahh the good old days huh? I don't object to the removal of the "controversy", but I would object to the removal of the whole "lavish estate with a helipad" reference. Slap me on the wrist if you need to, but why do I think that's really what was going to be removed here...? Or first remove the controversy, then come back later and remove the estate with helipad as unsourced? Also, I'm sure my phone is tapped and the government reads all my emails, but lets stay on topic :) -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 23:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm does not really help here, don't you think? It seems that the discussion is relevant and it is being conducted properly, so can we stay on topic? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dad! (That's sarcasm, see the difference?) My above post is directly on topic, and is how I feel about the direction the article may take. It's on point, and it's legitimate. If you're referring to my last sentence, I'm sure you're adult enough to handle it without losing the thread of the conversation. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 04:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Leave in the lavish estate with its highly controversial and fascinating helipad, but the Fire Brigade? Please! Rumiton (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you quote the text you're talking about? There's no mention of a "fire brigade" in the article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Geaves, Melton?
In the teachings section it says: Rawat speaks spontaneously, drawing upon real life experiences, anecdotes and his own experience, rather than scriptural interpretation, uncluttered by tradition in the vein of a contemporary Kabir or Nanak.[89][90]  and this is referenced from Geaves and/or Melton. Such a particular and ceertainly flattering comparison seems to me to be likely made by Ron Geaves, himself a well-known and self-proclaimed devotee of Prem Rawat. I may be wrong but my guess is that Melton would not have said this. Can someone a) please clarify where this sentence derives from? b) Explain what the current thinking is about using Geaves here as a reliable source given his status as a significant follower?PatW (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I researched this and the sentence in question is copied almost verbatim from Geaves. I'm not sure why Melton is listed as a source. I think we should drop Melton and attribute the view to Geaves. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would that be assessed as "flattering"? In any case, page 220 of Melton's, has useful information that is related to that sentence, referring to "a succession of spiritual masters generally believed to begin with Tulsi Sahib", the Sant Mat tradition, and other material. Geaves material can be attributed, as we have (and need to do, if we haven't) with all other scholars. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Geaves is plainly and quite predictably making a flattering comparison. Kabir and Nanak are not Tulsidas anyway. I would judge Geaves' comments to be more personal wishful thinking than an academic and unbiased judgement. Do we hear Melton comparing Rawat to Tulsi Sahaib in any such way? Undoubtedly not. We know that Geaves believes Rawat is a great reformer 'uncluttered by tradition' and he has devoted a whole paper to 'bigging up' Rawat in a rather fanciful way.  It's OK..it's to be expected but for goodness sake let's not pretend it's unbiased academic  work. It's not. Also I might point out that when Geaves says 'Rawat speaks spontaneously, drawing upon real life experiences, anecdotes and his own experience, rather than scriptural interpretation' - that may be partially true but why make Rawat out to be this fountain of unique wisdom when Rawat has actually  for years peppered his 'Satsangs' with scriptural references? Geaves knows that but he doesn't say it because it doesn't help him prove his assertion that Rawat is 'uncluttered' and somehow beyond tradition. My academic friend's reaction to Geaves' paper is more blunt: 'It's just bullshit - Rawat came from a tradition and he's just continuing it - end of story'. 'Geaves paper is all about making out Rawat is special and many of his more fanciful assertions are highly speculative and obviously influenced by his personal feelings about Rawat.'  So please, what is the thinking about using Geaves? If we do we should avoid including such obviously flattering 'opinions' of his. PatW (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've moved it to the "Teachings" article - the summary in this article shouldn't contain assertions not found in the main article and the point is too minor to require mentioning here. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought that there was agreement to write a good lead for the teachings article and then use that as the summary for this page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's an agreement that that would be a good idea. In the meantime the summary should not contain assertions that aren't in the main article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Would you work on a draft for a new lead for that article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not interested in that effort right now. As I wrote there, I think that article needs to be substantially expanded and rewritten but doing so is not on my agenda at the moment. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * NP. I will give it a go, and post in talk for editor's comments. May take a few days, time permitting. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2008

(UTC)

Is there any particular reason why nobody is addressing my question above (which I have discussed many times here with no real consensus ever being reached) - what is the current thinking on the use of Geaves as a source? Same goes for Collier and Cagan. For two years now I have restricted my contributions pretty much to the Talk pages for the stated reason that it was plainly important to establish ground rules as to what material is can be used and why. For years I've had Jossi preaching at me as if he knows the answer and I don't - but that's all up in the air now. Now I bring it up again nobody's apparently interested. Will? Francis? Jossi? Ruminton? Are you there?PatW (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The situation with Geaves is very different from either Collier or Cagan. Ron Geaves is a noted scholar writing in academic settings. While he may be partial, or even biased, that doesn't exclude him from being considered a reliable source. There's no requirement that sources be neutral. When he's used to give something that could be considered an opinion it should be attributed to him. Now if his work has been impeached or questioned in a reliable source then that might change things somewhat, but I haven't seen anything like that. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I just discovered that there is specific discussion about this on the DLM page. Is there a good reason that I was not asked to participate in this discussion along with other involved parties?PatW (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you mean Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Divine Light Mission? That mediation effort originated with disputes on about the DLM, and so the list of participants included those who were active on that talk page. It subsequently grew in scope but the list of participants wasn't expanded. Please join us. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Will. Yes that discussion seems to be dealing with these questions. I'll take a good lookPatW (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Rumiton!
Deleting sourced material with an edit summary of "tweaked" is unacceptable. If you see something in the article you would like to change please discuss it on the talk page first, this is something I would have expected from Momento, not you. I am reverting your edits until there is a reason for them, not because I do not agree with them. There is no reason to act this way. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 21:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What was removed? I see only this text removed: " in an arranged 2½ hour DVD presentation featuring Rawat's instruction. " I see no source provided by you, so the deletion may be warranted. Do you have a source for that statement? If so, please re-add and add the source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That probably belongs in the "Teachings" article anyway. It's not biographical. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. The first sentence is sufficient. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is in the teachings article. What I object to was the 5 edits in a row with a summary of "tweaks". These were not tweaks they are definite edits, in some cases, changing the essence of the text. BTW, jossi, you as well as I know, EXACTLY where that is sourced from, and is sourced, in the Teachings article. Ever hear of "Cite needed"? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 21:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) I don't know from where, Maelefique. And yes, fact could have been used. Now, please don't call my comment "disingenuous", it wasn't. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It is disingenuous, *YOU* gave me the source when I asked in one of the other articles. Do you want me to produce the diff? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 21:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, it's not biographical, it should stay in the teachings article. That's one of 5 edits that were made with a summary of "tweaks". I think it's slightly dishonest to make edits that way. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 21:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure one can assess these edits "slightly dishonest". Most probably made in good faith. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Read the edits, and get of your public relations kick please. If you don't find them slightly dishonest, you will continue to damage my ability to accept things you say in the spirit of WP:AGF, these are not tweaks. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 21:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * and FTR, I was referring to Citation needed specifically, I find it preferable to fact in cases like this. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 22:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * and get of your public relations kick please ???? Please cool it and remember the page probation. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if that is a question or not you are asking me. Did you not understand the comment? and if you did not, why are you commenting on it afterwards? I cannot help but note that you do not disagree with any of my positions taken in this discussion. Therefore it looks a lot to me like you're just trying to run some "damage control", "spin", or as I mentioned a "public relations" exercise. Please see this and here and the trifecta here. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 23:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You cannot read my mind, can you? So please keep your opinions of my motives to yourself, as it is simply not germane to this discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because you cannot read minds, you shouldn't make assumptions. You are the one off-topic, *I* started the topic! "Not sure one can assess these edits "slightly dishonest". Most probably made in good faith." What kind of fluff is that? It says nothing, it makes no point, takes no stand, states the obvious, and wastes our time, please contribute... or don't. Do you consider stripping away text that alters the content and/or context of this article in general to be ok, with an edit summary of "tweaks"? Would you say that was "more helpful" to other editors or "less helpful" using an edit summary that implies nothing more than a minor change, when in fact it is a significant change? I don't think these are complicated questions. (and I used  | "germane" yesterday, it is pretty handy isn't it!?) :) -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 06:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Here I am! "Slightly dishonest," huh? Well I have never been so insulted in all my...OK, I'm kidding. But seriously guys. Were any of those edits really a problem? Most were the tweakiest of tweaks, one was inserting the name of the country his mother repaired to, which the article confusingly lacked, the most terrible was apparently shortening the repetive description of Key Six. Of course it was presented by Prem Rawat, we have already said all the Keys are, and the 2.5 hours long thing seemed just superfluous, or perhaps even promotional. It was not a "significant change," and there was no POV there, it was just an attempt to make this horrendous hodge-podge of an article a bit more readable. If we are going to agonise like this over every such attempt it does not look good. Let's discuss the important things. Rumiton (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said to begin with, I didn't revert because I necessarily disagreed with the edits, and after thinking it over, regarding the 2.5 hours, I agreed with you that it didn't need to be there. What I objected to was the edit summary that made it look like you were fixing typos, and shifting a verb or something, when in fact you were deleting/adding material, then I got all excited and annoyed. Then jossi stepped in and stirred the pot a little more, even though he had nothing to contribute here (except to suggest I don't have a source for the material, which I got from a source he provided me with). In light of some of the other edits that have been going on around here recently, it would sure be helpful (I think) if your edit summaries were a little more explicit in their defining nature. And besides, a day without a controversy around here, how weird would that be?! -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 15:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, buddy, I appreciate your good humour. I will try to be more explicit in my edit summaries. I have been lazy. No excuse, Rumiton! None! Rumiton (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What?
In 1973 the 50-member public relations team of the Divine Light Mission summarized Rawat's image as a "fat 15-year-old with pie in his face ... and a Rolls-Royce ... who was arrested for jewel smuggling. Are you sure this is what the PR team said? I really do not know anymore what are you trying to do here, Will. Seriously. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's the context:
 * Members of the public relations staff, which numbers more than 50, met recently to talk about the guru's image, concluding he was seen as a "fat 15-year-old with pie in his face ... and a Rolls-Royce ... who was arrested for jewel smuggling." ... Richard Profumo, 27, who went to prison as a draft resister, told his colleagues at the public relations meeting of a necessity to bring disbelievers past the point where they looked at the guru's body and age as a measure of his credibility. "We're marketing a commodity which is visible only as a reflection," he said, referring to the knowledge and the peace it is supposed to bring.
 * The point of this is to illustrate the public image of Rawat at the height of his fame, as described by his own PR team. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have the source, Will. Are you saying that you are unaware of the poor way you reflected that source? I mean, if you are unable to see the problem with your edit ... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What's your objection? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, Will, I want you to take a hard look at your text, and a hard look at the source, and then tell me that you do not see any problem with it, before I point to you the obvious. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please point out the obvious. This game of "if you can't see the problem then you're a bad editor" is tiresome.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Is not a game, it simply me trying to understand what drives you. In any case, here it is: When reading that statement, it reads as if the PR group is summarizing his image, when actually they are stating that "he is seen as". One thing is to say:
 * In 1973 the 50-member public relations team of the Divine Light Mission summarized Rawat's image as a "fat 15-year-old with pie in his face ... and a Rolls-Royce ... who was arrested for jewel smuggling.;
 * and another thing is to say:
 * Members of the public relations staff, which numbers more than 50, met recently to talk about the guru's image, concluding he was seen as a "fat 15-year-old with pie in his face ... and a Rolls-Royce ... who was arrested for jewel smuggling." 
 * This is a better presentation of that material, per the source:
 * ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me, though it doesn't need the lengthy attribution. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with either version, if the second one makes jossi happier for some reason, I have no objection to it, although I fail to see this "obvious" huge difference that jossi apparently sees...oh wait...Seriously. (Although I think we can lop off the "newspaper in 1973" phrase, and just leave that in the source reference) -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 23:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you fail to see the difference, so be it. I see a massive difference and I am sure others will as well. Think of the reader. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The attribution is needed, of course. Stating that AP wire that was picked up by the paper of United States Armed Forces overseas is most necessarily needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? FWIW, I have five copies of the same story reprinted by differnt newspapers, and there are doubtless more. Should we list them all? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Which papers? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Which papers? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

<<<(A small request: please do not use "per Jossi's request" in edit summaries. Stating as per discussion in talk, is prefereable and more accurate. Thanks in advance.) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)


 * Unless you have a disupute with the quote, or the sources already provided, I don't see what difference it makes. Since you're not arguing against its inclusion, you obviously don't argue with the quote (ya ya, I can't read your mind, blah blah blah). Ergo, add the quote, footnote it as per standard procedure, and allow the reader to investigate if they feel the need. On the other hand, if you do have a problem with the veracity of the quote, that's an entirely different matter. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 23:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I do not understand what you are saying. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * [e/c] It's an AP story. It was probably carried in dozens or even hundreds of papers. I suppose it'd could be reasonable to say something like "It was reported that..." or "Reportedly...", but unless we're asserting that the AP has a particular bias that needs to be attribued then it's a waste of space to attribute it, especially since it's a quotation. The remark is not particularly surprising: it's brief statement of the popular perception of Rawat in the U.S. in 1973.   ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "probably carried" is a statement that is inconsistent with my research. As far as I can see, it was picked up by a single paper. You said you have found it in many of papers, so I am just asking if you can say which. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And why, exactly, does this matter? Is this just an idle request or is there a reason you want me to compile a list for you? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * An idle request to ask in which newspapers this wired was published? As I said, I have not found any other newspapers that picked up this AP wire, in the databases I have access to. If it was only on one outle4t, then we attribute it to that outlet. Makes sense? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't make sense. It's a wire service. While individual newspapers may cut copy or write their own headline, the text of the material is from AP. They are the source. We don't attribute books to their publisher, just to their author. And in this case I don't even see a need to attribute it to the AP, since it isn't an opinion or judgment call, it's a quote. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * since it isn't an opinion or judgment call. How do you know that? The AP wire does not provide information if that quote is hearsay, if an AP journalist was there, or if it a quote from another source, does it? Fact is that this "quote" is only available in a wire has significance, and thus it needs to be attributed. Just remember that AP has had its share of controversies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree and I think you're making a spurious point. The standard you're suggesting would require that virtually every assertion in this and every other article be attributed. Maybe we should also include the name of the newspaper archive in the attribution, because we're not really sure that the archive correctly recorded the newspaper article? And attribute the edit to the editor who added it, in case that editor mis-characterized the material? How about including the editor's ISP? Where does it stop?   ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How could it possibly be more accurate to attribute a text change to some non-specific contributor on a talk page, rather than to identify who suggested it? It may be preferable, it certainly isn't more accurate. It *might* be more preferable and accurate to say "per jossi's request, see discussion on talk page" or something like that. Is that what you meant? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 23:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a collaborative effort, isn't it. So saying "as per talk page discussion" is more accurate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a collaborative effort, but it's going to be Crosby that scores the goal to take home the Stanley Cup, there's no harm in noting individuals on a team. While everyone plays a part, the Penguins coach is not going to shoot the puck, and ESPN is not going to say The Penguins scored the winning goal, they're going to say Crosby did. Why? Because it is more accurate. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 06:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

May I ask...
... That editors slow-down a bit with edits so that there is sometime given for these to be discussed? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No one is stopping editors from discussing edits. The material just added is still being improved so it would be a bad time to protect the page. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not asking for page protection, Will. I am just asking to slow down a bit, that's all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm making the edits that I proposed and received input on. I'm not editing that "fast" anyway. If there are specific issues with the edits go ahead and raise them. We can take as much time as is necessary to resolve any problems. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My above objection concerning Reception has not seriously been adressed, but pretty much run over, hasn’t it?--Rainer P. (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's keep that discussion in that thread. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

<<< I will still have to raise a concern here. We have at least 15 items in the mediation page that needs our attention, and instead of bridging these disputes there, a new set of disputes is being introduced here. There are even assertions made that the DLM areticle has improved, which in light of the many disputes there, I would say that it is either wishful thinking, or an attempt to frame that article as resolved. It is not. Hereby I object to the way this is progressing. I will port a concern in the MedCab page to in this regard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not introducing new disputes. I solicited input for edits, received it, and edited accordingly. If you wanted to object you had the opportunity, but you didn't. Yes, the list of items to handle at the Medcab is long. If I recall correctly, you added many of them. The topics of these new edits are not issues that we are mediating anyway.  It's not reasonable to ask people to stop editing until mediation is complete. Particularly not when this article is in such need of editing. If new disputes do come up let's try to deal with them here rather than just adding them to the mediation list.   ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are introducing new material about which there are new disputes. I have asked you to slow down, but it seems that you are not interested. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I said I was going to add new material, you commented, I added the material, and now you're saying slow down. I dont know what you mean by "slow down". If you mean stop editng until mediation is entirely complete then I don't think that's practical or appropriate. If you want to discuss this bunch of edits further that's fine with me. There's no rush. We are actively discussing issues above. That's how Wikipedia works. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with your position. You have decided to keep adding materials to this article while the article is in mediation, which removes the focus from it by adding more disputes. You seem to think this is OK, so I may decide to deal with this in a different manner. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody asked folks to stop editing until you did this evening, after I'd already made the edits we'd discussed. If the mediator requests that the articles be protected during mediation then of course I'd respect that. However, while there is a long list of issues at mediation, none of them are terrbily serious. You chose to use the mediation cabal instead of formal mediation. If you wanted formal mediation then you picked the wrong venue. This is just informal mediation. Relax. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Informal mediation is part of WP:DR and a valid venue for resolving disputes. And if you decide that using the MedCab is not serious enough for you, I will file a request for mediation with the MedCom straight away. Is that what you want? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one complaining here, or asking to change the groundrules. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

<< Jossi, whoa. That sounded like you were threatening them. Okay, Everyone calm down. While I can't impose edits, or actions, I'd advise the editors to work towards a consensus here before making edits. Remember that all articles are on article probation. As for protection during disputes, I've only requested that be done when I felt necessary, at this time, it's probably unnecessary. And, if it was protected, I'd ask that Jossi not edit the page, even though they can, as a sysop. I'm still watching. Continue discussion. And erm, perhaps you should use bullets and outdents a little more? Creates a page stretch. Steve Crossin  (talk)   (review)  05:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Not threating, unless you believe that MedCom is a bad thing :) Will Beback accepted to engage in the mediation. So, I am asking again: Does Will believe that the MedCab attempt is not serious enough and that he would be more compliant with a mediation process if we file a request with the MedCom? As for editing an article I am involved with while protected, I have not done that in 65,000 edits and I have not intention to do so :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I feel MedCab is a good thing, and I don't think it's beyond us, or, me, to resolve this dispute, or at least improve the situation. I haven't been following the discussion on the talk pages extensively, I can do that now. Could you bring me up to speed? And I have no doubt as an admin you would not edit a protected page, it was just something to mention. Steve Crossin  (talk)   (review)  06:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd advise the editors to work towards a consensus here before making edits. - I wholeheartedly agree. What about others? Will? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is about consensus. With respect Jossi, perhaps I should do the advising here? :) Steve Crossin   (talk)   (review)  06:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, you were doing the advising. Jossi quoted your advice, expressed agreement, and asked whether others agreed with your advice as well. That seems okay to me. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 16:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * e/c: If I weren't working towards consensus would I have asked for input before making the edits outlined in ? Would I have replied to every concern you've expressed? Those are consensus-building activities. I have no complaints about the current mediation. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We can work towards consensus in talk. And when there is consensus, we do the edit. It works, I have seen it work, and there is no reason why it would not work here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have still not responded regarding the invitation to participate in the Mediation, posted about a week ago now on my talk page. First: thanks for the invitation. Second: sorry for taking so long to think about it. I have read quite some parts of the MedCab related texts now: not so many of them were talk where I felt directly involved. I think talk on this page to find consensus on the content of the Prem Rawat article quite productive lately. I'm less interested in the DLM article currently, or rather, one can't do it all. Once the Prem Rawat article has reached near-perfection, I'll see what I do with my time then. Anyway, if some of the topics of the MedCab proceedings catch my attention I might contribute, I hope there's no impediment there (if there is: I'm happy with whatever consensus the MedCab results in). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Jinxed
We have now again the highly unbalanced situation, that will inevitably cause controversy: A relativly extensive “Criticism” section in the article, and nothing about approval. Isn’t it jinxed? What do you “uninvolved” editors intend to do about it? How could this happen? Do you think it’s alright?--Rainer P. (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, "approval"? We have a whole section to listing estimates of the numbers of followers. The first paragraph of the "criticism" section is a nuetral account of press coverage. Then there is a paragraph discussing the former members. Lastly there are opinions from two scholars. The last one is not necessarily even critical - it just discusses Rawat's charisma. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no reason I see for not interspersing that material in the appropriate sections in the article, and within the chronology. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Numbers don’t balance appraisal. If you give room to negative assessment, you must also give room to positive assessment, possibly in a proportional way (that would make the article rather lengthy) or somehow giving an account of the real proportions. Otherwise the article is negatively biased. Maybe give it a thought or two when you're finished with dealing with that ulcer.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's very little "negative" information in the "criticism" section. If we tally the amount of "positive" information in the article we may find that there is an approximate balance. Surely Raienr doesn't want us to remove all mention of criticism, as that would profundly violate NPOV. I agree with Jossi that most information (positive or negative) should be placed in chronological order. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The heading says “Reception”, which should incorporate numbers and content in a neutral manner. Then there is only explicitly negative (“brainwashing” and “mind control”) or superficial (charisma being an effect of staging) appraisal as regards content. Hard to understand what made and makes such numbers of people get involved with Rawat, against the admittedly negative grain of mass media. “Following” does not balance “Criticism”, but covers the numerical development of the movement over time, which is also informative. “Criticism” is not balanced at all, but scrapes the bottom of invidious apostasy and Dutch theology. Isn’t this somehow “intellectually unremarkable”?--Rainer P. (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're misunderstanding the idea of balance a little here. There does not need to be an equal amounts of "positive" and "negative" content in the article, rather, the amount of criticism in the article should be balanced with how relevant it is to the subject. In this case, there is a reasonable amount of criticism about this topic. and as I've pointed out before, if the Mother Teresa and  Pope Benedict XVI articles can survive as GA articles, with "Criticism" sections, I think a criticism section here should be just fine as well. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 21:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not against mentioning the criticism. But being explicit exclusively on critical issues is not correct in this case. Everybody has heard about Mother Theresa or the Pope from many sources, but Prem Rawat is largely unknown, and the WP-article may for many readers be the first instance of encountering the subject, so there is a special responsibility for delivering a carefully undistorted account. I did not request “equal amounts of positive and negative contents”, as that would display a false balance anyway. I asked for a more neutral point of view as a background for the Reception section, as I observe an obvious deficiency there. And I do not think I am misunderstanding the idea of balance, as it appears rather simple. And you have not adressed my concern.--Rainer P. (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * To address Rainer's concern I'll find some laudatory quotes by Davis (or even Mishler himself) to add to the Millennium '73 section. Those can offset Mishler's negative comments in the same decade. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

From patronizing to cynical.--Rainer P. (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Will, please. This is not helpful whatsoever. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Rainer P., aside from being unhappy about something, I'm afraid I don't follow your thread exactly, perhaps you could cobble together some kind rough draft for the section you don't like and we can work on it here? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 22:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Rainer could explain or demonstrate a more neutral way of discussing the opposition to the subject from former members, for example. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And now to hysterical. What's eating you guys? Aren't you experienced editors? Is what I say so far from common sense and so hard to understand? You make me feel I'm wasting time with you. But maybe I'm just tired, think I'll go to bed. Good night!--Rainer P. (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I can only remind you about WP:NAM and I look forward to reading your helpful comments in the morning. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 23:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Rainer P, is making a very solid argument above, which is being dismissed with flippant comments and not to the merits of the argument. I do not think that he deserves that kind of treatment, so I look forward to hearing arguments and response to his comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)


 * I already answered him in all seriousness, twice, I did not give him flippant answers, and he chose to dismiss me, perhaps you'd like to respond to my comments above instead, since he chose not to? BTW, I also responded to your suggestion that we remove the "Criticism" section, I'm opposed. Am I still being hysterical? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 00:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Good morning! So you can not understand what I say? How come I’m not surprised? Must be because English is only one foreign language to me, that’s why I’m reluctant to edit the article. But I am quite familiar with human behavior, and I can tell the difference between serious collaboration and arrogance. I like your fancy signature. But I think, the level of understanding you have to date displayed in enhancing the quality of the article does not give you the right of making me an object of your fun. Sorry, I won’t dance. And not being unemployed, I have to now to look after some responsibilities. Take care! P.S. "Hysterical" means: acted, not authentic.--Rainer P. (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Rainer should read the press reports at ex-premie.org/pages/press_room.htm and decide if the Wiki article is too negative or positive about Rawat. --John Brauns (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A restaurant critic will not judge a gourmet restaurant by the content of its garbage can.--Rainer P. (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What does your comment mean? Is it a personal attack on me or are you calling the world's press 'garbage'? --John Brauns (talk) 07:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh my God, please, how can you doubt my reflexive kowtow at the feet of the world's press!
 * I mean, the garbage can has a very important function especially in a gourmet restaurant. At least you can be sure, that what’s in it is not on your plate. No offence!--Rainer P. (talk) 07:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That looks better. But one wonders, if the Stephen A. Kent-quote can be called a scholarly assessment – commenting on hearing one (?) address, seemingly unprepared (otherwise no disappointment nor surprise). Maybe he can be called a scholar in some of his works, but the term ‘assessment’ is stretched a little here, as it implies to my understanding a certain level of scientific effort, at least proper description. And still: Even the Teachings-section says little about the appeal, resp. the effect of the Knowledge, when practiced right. But that's what constitutes the main motive – not Rawat's charisma or other personal attributes – for the whole movement. Without information on this, the whole scene stays more or less incomprehensible, or just strange. So I suggest to give a little more information about this in the teaching section, there are abundant sources. That could perhaps counterweigh some of the negative slant of the Reception chapter. Opinions?--Rainer P. (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey guys, simmer down. Let's seek solutions instead of picking fights. Here's what I'm going to do: delete the "criticism" heading and split the material into three sections: "Media", "Opposition", and "Scholarly assessments". That will address complaints about having a "criticism" section and will make the actual contents clearer. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think that a passing comment on the foreword of a book deserves a sub-heading in any article. I am referring to the "disappointment" sub-heading. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Schnabel
The material from Schnabel is written in an editorial voice, when it is actually Schnabel's opinion. The voice needs to be changed and the opinion attributed. It may need trimming as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Which part of the text referenced to Schnabel? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Current edit:

Proposed edit:

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please check for grammar and readability, the first sentence misses a verb etc.
 * And no, I don't agree this is more accurate. The "view" regarding the general analysis is both Van der Lans' and Schnabel's. Schnabel extensively quotes, paraphrases and summarizes VdLans, sharing the view, there's no disparity between their views. Its specific application to Rawat (and some others mentioned in the ref, but whose article is elsewhere in Wikipedia) is somewhat more elaborated by Schnabel. This is accurately referenced in the current version. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. As it reads in the current version it uses an editorial voice, when it is actually an opinion by Schnabel, based on material from Lans. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And I am sure you are clever enough to fix my grammar. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't invite others to do your cleanup. But thanks for the compliment, you used to comment on my English as being inadequate.
 * I have little interest in your version, I think it inherently more flawed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You have yet to respond to the argument presented about using an editorial voice. You are asserting an opinion as a fact, unless you attribute the opinion to these that hold them. If you do not fix that, I will. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Another proposal, fully attributed:

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Still awaiting for a response about this proposal. Seeking consensus requires active participation, and discussion of the merits of proposals, and alternative counter-proposals if needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
 * How have you changed the text and why? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't you read it above? The only changes I made are attributing the opinions rather than asserting them as facts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=214592307&oldid=214585807 --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Almost there, thanks. Made some small tweaks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)