Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 38

New subsection for "Reception" section (proposal)
To be inserted after the "Charisma and leadership" subsection

The refs are maybe still a bit sketchy, but hopefully clear enough. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Too much OR and SYNTH for my liking. Jayen 466 18:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And no context or fairness.Momento (talk) 05:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Associating Rawat with the term "cult leader" is disputed on several grounds:" is ridiculously NPOV. No one is "associating" they are saying he was/is a cult leader!


 * "Disputed on several grounds?" Serious POV push. Why not just report the facts, like: "And other disagree, saying:, ." Hohohahaha (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Merriam-Webster, CULT is “a system of religious beliefs and ritual; a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious” and SECT is “a dissenting or schismatic religious body, especially one regarded as extreme or heretical; b: a religious denomination”.

If a cult or sect is a “system of religious beliefs and rituals” or a “dissenting schismatic religious” body, a club of para-psychologists, UFO fans, spiritists, organizations of pscychological or spiritual studies, etc. are not sects. Who decides what is a cult or sect and what not? It is of course a problem of semantics, just like the Catholic and Protestant interpretation of the same Bible with different semantics. A Spanish dictionary gives Islam as example of a sect, but whatever dictionaries say, what most people understand by “cult” and “sect” is a 1) more or less small religious group with 2) a specific life-style, 3) usually living separately in a community, 4) following a set of rules, as the Merriam-Webster mentions, usually "extreme" and 5) where freedom is often more limited than for believers of traditional, large, standard religious churches.

Prem Rawat has clearly and repeatedly declared that his (inner) Knowledge is not a religion nor a philosophy, does not ask anyone to stop or start believing anything, no dogmas, no rules, no rituals and no liturgy. Many feel respect and veneration for him, but also for Nelson Mandela, etc.

Prem Rawat does not ask to change lifestyle nor beliefs, lives from his own money, and “his” organization accepts donations just like Greenpeace, otherwise there is no organization, no events, no speeches, no people feeling better, and no humanitarian projects in disaster areas by an organization independently audited and declared to be of a high standard of transparency and accountability, as detailed in the corresponding website.

All Prem Rawat asks, (not requests) is to practice at least one hour every day, alone, at home, in silence. I see this closer to a club than to a sect Osho Baghwan style. Both were born in India but there is almost nothing else in common. How easily we generalize. Many do not have the willpower to follow the advice (expecting, with wishful thinking, it will work in a magical way in a few hours, weeks or months, despite having promised to practice all their life, then they feel restless, because only meditation can calm the mind and bring peace, and then blame him. They should read Swami Sivananda, who said you need an "adamantine" willpower for meditation, or Paramahansa Yogananda, who adviced to practice AT LEAST two hours per day, and 5 hours on Sundays. Prem Rawat has not invented anything, this was "invented" a long time ago, he just explains in a simple way, for all kinds of people, what Yogananda and others explained as "spiritual technology" for intellectuals --Pedrero (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Honor: Prem Rawat Day
This statement was removed due to lack of supporting documents. Also raising the concern that person reading out the official statement and handling the award is not known. I searched around on internet and found following news: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1156446.cms Also regarding the person who hosted the opening and closing session of the event (and presented the award to Mr. Rawat) is: Bill McCarthy, Administrator UN 60th-CUltural and Educational events President, Unity Foundation. You may find the evidence in linked video at 02min 12 sec. Here the person himself speaks his introduction on the stage, to the people sitting in the UN hall. This is wiki of a living person, and such achievement should definitely be included in the content. --Taxed123 (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC) --Taxed123 (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it was deleted due to a lack of notability. Virtually every day in San Francisco is designated to honor somebody or something. Aside from a nice plaque it doesn't mean much. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * i am not sure if this award is given 'every day'. But for a wiki of person, this is one of the most notable recognition in his life and should be put on the wiki. When we have such events mentioned as "Rawat went to the Detroit city hall to receive a testimonial resolution praising his work, but was pied by a reporter... " which happened over 30 years ago, more so highlights the importance of recognition mentioned above by me.
 * Jossi recently brought to our attention an article in La Sicilia reporting that Rawat spoke in Palermo and was awarded an honorary citizenship there. That event appears to have been well sponsored, and perhaps better meets our notability criteria. If there have been other, similar events reported in reliable sources, let's hear about them. I agree with Will that the SF event was not notable – it does not appear to have been reported by a single SF paper. (The Times of India simply picked up a TPRF press release and ran with it.) Jayen 466 19:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, the previous discussion of this was at Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 37. As for the La Sicilia article, it's not clear that it isn't a press release too. The best way of handling this sort of thing may be to just list them in a sentence. As for the Detroit honor, that wouldn't have been notable either if it weren't for the pie throwing. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Las Sicilia is not a press release in looking at the thumbnail I have of the newspaper. As I said, I will provide a PDF of it once I get hold of it. If you want me to email you the thumbnail, pls ping me in my talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Addition of Minor Speaking Engagements
I have removed Jayen466's addition of two of Rawat's minor speaking engagements in Sicily, as it would set a precedent for adding new ones every time he speaks. I think the article already makes clear he continues to deliver regular addresses on peace. --John Brauns (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought it was noteworthy because the article (Jossi sent me a pdf of it) mentions sponsorship by the Italian president. I note that Rawat seems to have good political connections in Italy – a former Italian premier (and former president of the European Parliament) wrote the intro to Cagan's Rawat biography. Jayen 466 17:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is normal for notable current events to be added to BLP, sometimes eventually replaced by more recent or notable events in future. However, this engagement in Sicily does appear to be quite minor and as such of questionable notability. In researching this, I note that in 2007 Rawat directly addressed the Italian parliament; a much more notable event that has not been captured in his biography. The 2007 address of Italian parliament was noted by mainstream English language press and TV news broadcasts are on youtube. Savlonn (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * John, would you be ok with a sentence about the more notable 2007 address to the Italian parliament instead of the 2008 speaking engagement in Italy? Savlonn (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, if you can provide the English language press reports, and they are reliable sources. --John Brauns (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Care needs to be taken when dealing with self promoting entities to ensure that what is claimed, is actually true. In the case Savlonn raises "addressed the Italian Parliament" acutally is only 'spoke in a hired room in the Italian Parliament building'; one of the sponsors appears to be admitted cocaine user Emilio Colombo - perhas that does add notability. The event can be viewed here [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8ETzrAktzM
 * I oppose the addition to this article of any 'recent notable events' not contextulised within a reliable English language source, until the disputed neutrality tag can be legitimately removed. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason I've taken a couple of days to follow up this is when I attempted to do the 'reliable sources' due diligence on this with this, I came up empty handed. I can't vouch for Nik's claim that the presentation was in a 'hired room', but at the same time I certainly can't vouch that this was an 'official' presentation to the Italian Parliament sponsored by the Italian Government, as implied within the videeo. I am also surprised that my follow up research failed to find cororborating reliable sources expected for a 'notable event'. As such I must retract my initial claim that Rawat "Directly Addressed the Italian Parliament", along with my support to include this event in the Biography. Savlonn (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

From Talk:Bibliography_of_Prem_Rawat_and_related_organizations

 * Discussion moved in from Talk:Bibliography_of_Prem_Rawat_and_related_organizations

Source: DIGNITY AND PROSPERITY FOR PEACE, La Sicilia, July 2nd, 2008. Translated from Italian original: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Full text  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Full text  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Snipped per policy (Copyrights): don't link to works that constitute a possible copyright infringement. The translator is unknown, so the translation can neither be fair use, nor GFDL. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Shortened per Non-free content. Please explain which point needs to be illustrated, which context established, or which point of view or idea attributed by this quotation.

Also, if giving a translation, please either indicate where the translation was published, or provide the text in the original language too, per WP:V. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The original Italian text is in the newspaper,I can provide a PDF if needed, Submitted as another source for this list, and as possible source for the main article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text applies to articles, the full text was provided here so that editors may assess the material as we have done with many other media articles. See for example Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please explain which point needs to be illustrated, which context established, or which point of view or idea attributed by this quotation.
 * Non-free content applies. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Who did the translation? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A bilingual friend of mine. I will submit a PDF of the newspaper or the Italian text in a day or two. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In other words: the copyright holder of the translation is unspecified: this makes it impossible to publish this translation under either fair use or GFDL at Wikipedia. See Copyrights. See below for a Wikipedian's translation of a message with similar content. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

A related source: http://www.siciliainternazionale.it/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=334&Itemid=106 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, interesting. Jayen 466 19:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is a translation, for reference:


 * Italian is not my strongest suit, but I think I got the gist of it. Jayen 466 10:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This talk page of the Bibliography article regards the discussion of what and how we list in the Bibliography:
 * La Sicilia article: we'd need the newpaper article's title in the original language, and if possible a page number for the article. Can these be provided?
 * Re. article on the SiciliaInternazionale website: it is unclear to me what credentials this webite has (seems like a chamber of commerce type of website, but couldn't really determine it from the website alone)
 * Neither of these articles appears to have a clear lead section, so I don't suppose we'd be quoting from these articles in the Bibliography. Thoughts?
 * The other discussion: what part of the content of these articles may be eligible to base content for Rawat-related articles upon: I'd move that part of the discussion (and quotes) to Talk:Prem Rawat/journalists. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said, I will provide the full text in the original Italian. Note that it is August and it is almost impossible to find anyone in Italy that has not gone for "un settimana al mare". So it may take a few days before I get a response. As for the use of this source in the articles, I don't know. We are nor discussing many of the other sources in this page, so I do not understand why we need to discuss this. I am sure it could be used, leave that to you guys. I understand that the La Sicilia article had a lede, I will confirm this when I get a scan of the page. I know that it had some photos as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Please make up your mind: Nobody is helped by ambiguous messages. The talk page of the Bibliography article is not the appropriate place to discuss inclusion of the content in other articles. [...] --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Submitted [...] as possible source for the main article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)"
 * "[...] I do not understand why we need to discuss this. [...] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

- Anyone wanting a scan of the newspaper article, pls email me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat has been in hundreds of places, but one, Corleone, is considered by some the most important place he has been. Why? Because the maffia is there. Speeches in famous universities, or his early times wit the hippies have little significance for some, but having been in Corleone, even once for a speech of one hour, is the key event of his life. You see what you want to see and do not see what you do not want to see. And did he go there after all? I have heard and read all kinds o fthings in the 34 years I know Prem Rawat, lots of them nonsense. The newspaper says only they had invited him, and can we trust the newspapers of the land of the maffia? And if he did go, is not peace what the land of the maffia needs? --Pedrero (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * yes the land of the mafffia is very important, Rawat belongs to Corleone 89.247.40.215 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC).

NPOV tag
For some reason there is an editor who is making edits without logging in, and is repeatedly removing the NPOV tag. Due to the history of the article, of the ArbCom case, and of the recent MedCab case, it's clear that some editors feel this article has problems with neutrality. Rather than edit-warring anonymously, I urge this editor to sign in and post his or her concerns here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag
For some reason there is an editor who is making edits without logging in, and is repeatedly removing the NPOV tag. Due to the history of the article, of the ArbCom case, and of the recent MedCab case, it's clear that some editors feel this article has problems with neutrality. Rather than edit-warring anonymously, I urge this editor to sign in and post his or her concerns here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

AFD for The Prem Rawat Foundation
Editors of this article may be interested in giving their opinions at Articles for deletion/The Prem Rawat Foundation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Honor: Prem Rawat Day
This statement was removed due to lack of supporting documents. Also raising the concern that person reading out the official statement and handling the award is not known. I searched around on internet and found following news: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1156446.cms Also regarding the person who hosted the opening and closing session of the event (and presented the award to Mr. Rawat) is: Bill McCarthy, Administrator UN 60th-CUltural and Educational events President, Unity Foundation. You may find the evidence in linked video at 02min 12 sec. Here the person himself speaks his introduction on the stage, to the people sitting in the UN hall. This is wiki of a living person, and such achievement should definitely be included in the content. --Taxed123 (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC) --Taxed123 (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it was deleted due to a lack of notability. Virtually every day in San Francisco is designated to honor somebody or something. Aside from a nice plaque it doesn't mean much. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * i am not sure if this award is given 'every day'. But for a wiki of person, this is one of the most notable recognition in his life and should be put on the wiki. When we have such events mentioned as "Rawat went to the Detroit city hall to receive a testimonial resolution praising his work, but was pied by a reporter... " which happened over 30 years ago, more so highlights the importance of recognition mentioned above by me.
 * Jossi recently brought to our attention an article in La Sicilia reporting that Rawat spoke in Palermo and was awarded an honorary citizenship there. That event appears to have been well sponsored, and perhaps better meets our notability criteria. If there have been other, similar events reported in reliable sources, let's hear about them. I agree with Will that the SF event was not notable – it does not appear to have been reported by a single SF paper. (The Times of India simply picked up a TPRF press release and ran with it.) Jayen 466 19:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, the previous discussion of this was at Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 37. As for the La Sicilia article, it's not clear that it isn't a press release too. The best way of handling this sort of thing may be to just list them in a sentence. As for the Detroit honor, that wouldn't have been notable either if it weren't for the pie throwing. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Las Sicilia is not a press release in looking at the thumbnail I have of the newspaper. As I said, I will provide a PDF of it once I get hold of it. If you want me to email you the thumbnail, pls ping me in my talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Addition of Minor Speaking Engagements
I have removed Jayen466's addition of two of Rawat's minor speaking engagements in Sicily, as it would set a precedent for adding new ones every time he speaks. I think the article already makes clear he continues to deliver regular addresses on peace. --John Brauns (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought it was noteworthy because the article (Jossi sent me a pdf of it) mentions sponsorship by the Italian president. I note that Rawat seems to have good political connections in Italy – a former Italian premier (and former president of the European Parliament) wrote the intro to Cagan's Rawat biography. Jayen 466</i> 17:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is normal for notable current events to be added to BLP, sometimes eventually replaced by more recent or notable events in future. However, this engagement in Sicily does appear to be quite minor and as such of questionable notability. In researching this, I note that in 2007 Rawat directly addressed the Italian parliament; a much more notable event that has not been captured in his biography. The 2007 address of Italian parliament was noted by mainstream English language press and TV news broadcasts are on youtube. Savlonn (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * John, would you be ok with a sentence about the more notable 2007 address to the Italian parliament instead of the 2008 speaking engagement in Italy? Savlonn (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, if you can provide the English language press reports, and they are reliable sources. --John Brauns (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Care needs to be taken when dealing with self promoting entities to ensure that what is claimed, is actually true. In the case Savlonn raises "addressed the Italian Parliament" acutally is only 'spoke in a hired room in the Italian Parliament building'; one of the sponsors appears to be admitted cocaine user Emilio Colombo - perhas that does add notability. The event can be viewed here [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8ETzrAktzM
 * I oppose the addition to this article of any 'recent notable events' not contextulised within a reliable English language source, until the disputed neutrality tag can be legitimately removed. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason I've taken a couple of days to follow up this is when I attempted to do the 'reliable sources' due diligence on this with this, I came up empty handed. I can't vouch for Nik's claim that the presentation was in a 'hired room', but at the same time I certainly can't vouch that this was an 'official' presentation to the Italian Parliament sponsored by the Italian Government, as implied within the videeo. I am also surprised that my follow up research failed to find cororborating reliable sources expected for a 'notable event'. As such I must retract my initial claim that Rawat "Directly Addressed the Italian Parliament", along with my support to include this event in the Biography. Savlonn (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

From Talk:Bibliography_of_Prem_Rawat_and_related_organizations

 * Discussion moved in from Talk:Bibliography_of_Prem_Rawat_and_related_organizations

Source: DIGNITY AND PROSPERITY FOR PEACE, La Sicilia, July 2nd, 2008. Translated from Italian original: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

<snip (for copyright reasons, see below) Francis Schonken (talk) 06:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC) > ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Full text <snip (for copyright reasons, see below) Francis Schonken (talk) 06:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)> ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Full text <snip (for copyright reasons, see below) Francis Schonken (talk) 06:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)> ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Snipped per policy (Copyrights): don't link to works that constitute a possible copyright infringement. The translator is unknown, so the translation can neither be fair use, nor GFDL. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Shortened per Non-free content. Please explain which point needs to be illustrated, which context established, or which point of view or idea attributed by this quotation.

Also, if giving a translation, please either indicate where the translation was published, or provide the text in the original language too, per WP:V. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The original Italian text is in the newspaper,I can provide a PDF if needed, Submitted as another source for this list, and as possible source for the main article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text applies to articles, the full text was provided here so that editors may assess the material as we have done with many other media articles. See for example Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please explain which point needs to be illustrated, which context established, or which point of view or idea attributed by this quotation.
 * Non-free content applies. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Who did the translation? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A bilingual friend of mine. I will submit a PDF of the newspaper or the Italian text in a day or two. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In other words: the copyright holder of the translation is unspecified: this makes it impossible to publish this translation under either fair use or GFDL at Wikipedia. See Copyrights. See below for a Wikipedian's translation of a message with similar content. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

A related source: http://www.siciliainternazionale.it/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=334&Itemid=106 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, interesting. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 19:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is a translation, for reference:


 * Italian is not my strongest suit, but I think I got the gist of it. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 10:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This talk page of the Bibliography article regards the discussion of what and how we list in the Bibliography:
 * La Sicilia article: we'd need the newpaper article's title in the original language, and if possible a page number for the article. Can these be provided?
 * Re. article on the SiciliaInternazionale website: it is unclear to me what credentials this webite has (seems like a chamber of commerce type of website, but couldn't really determine it from the website alone)
 * Neither of these articles appears to have a clear lead section, so I don't suppose we'd be quoting from these articles in the Bibliography. Thoughts?
 * The other discussion: what part of the content of these articles may be eligible to base content for Rawat-related articles upon: I'd move that part of the discussion (and quotes) to Talk:Prem Rawat/journalists. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said, I will provide the full text in the original Italian. Note that it is August and it is almost impossible to find anyone in Italy that has not gone for "un settimana al mare". So it may take a few days before I get a response. As for the use of this source in the articles, I don't know. We are nor discussing many of the other sources in this page, so I do not understand why we need to discuss this. I am sure it could be used, leave that to you guys. I understand that the La Sicilia article had a lede, I will confirm this when I get a scan of the page. I know that it had some photos as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Please make up your mind: Nobody is helped by ambiguous messages. The talk page of the Bibliography article is not the appropriate place to discuss inclusion of the content in other articles. [...] --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Submitted [...] as possible source for the main article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)"
 * "[...] I do not understand why we need to discuss this. [...] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

- Anyone wanting a scan of the newspaper article, pls email me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat has been in hundreds of places, but one, Corleone, is considered by some the most important place he has been. Why? Because the maffia is there. Speeches in famous universities, or early times with hippies have little significance for some, but going to Corleone, even once for a speech of one hour, is the key event of his life. You see what you want to see and do not see what you do not want to see. And did he go there after all? I have heard and read all kinds of things in the 34 years since I met Prem Rawat, lots of them nonsense. The newspaper says only they invited him, and can we trust the newspapers of the land of the maffia? And if he did go, is not peace what the land of the maffia needs?

Shortly after mainstraim media critiziced and ridiculed Prem and his followers in the times of the hippies, Prem was invited to speak at the House of Representatives in Washington for the US Bicentennial speeches, in 1976, when Prem was I think 19 years old, so he might be the youngest person to ever speak in what is perhaps the most important assembly or institution in the world. Good enough for the Guinness records, but not enough for his Wikipedia biography, though in my almost humble opinion it is more important than many unfavourable or favourable events listed in Prem's article. I suppose inevitably some will consider this event a more definitive proof that Prem has connections with the maffia than being in Corleone. --Pedrero (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * yes the land of the mafffia is very important, Rawat belongs to Corleone 89.247.40.215 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC).

And another AfD
Articles for deletion/Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleting 'aviation interests'
Unlike a lot other contents of this article, these had at least something to do with the biography’s subject, so I don’see any additional value in deleting, especially without discussion. Reverted.--Rainer P. (talk) 05:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed.Momento (talk) 06:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Revert away. Why not delete (in this long, long article) the contents that, as you say, don't have anything to do with the subject? Well, I could contribute to an actual discussion: I'm sure Prem Rewat's life is full of details (bathroom and grooming habits, weight, pets, model trains perhaps) that also have no bearing whatsoever on the importance of the subject's life for others. Now, this patent may be something, if it can be shown to be more than just a patent, if that thing has actually been made, and works, and is used, etc. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As I'd previoulsy suggested, this material would be better placed alongside discussion of the subject getting ihs pilot's license, or otherwise placing it into chronological order. The patent is only sourced to a primary source, which is dubious since we don't have any secondary source for it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Drmies, if I were the only editor of this (not only “long, long”, but also overloaded and chatty) article, I would certainly delete a lot of material, that preferably describes the subject’s ephemeral impact on mass media, social institutions (like the L.A. Fire Department) and mediocre scholars, at the thorough expense of the spirit. Bathroom habits e.g. would not be part of what remained, no matter how well-sourced. But then I understand WP has to persue a state of consent, and such action would be received as extremely disruptive – remember, the Vandals are believed to originate from a part of Europe that today is mostly Germany! I will not perpetuate their tradition and delete material without prior discussion. But I hope that in the long run an acceptable equilibrium will evolve between the complex POVs that give the present article its fragmented character, as we all hopefully get wiser every day. Cheers!--Rainer P. (talk) 07:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Bathroom habits? What article are you reading? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No article. Only referring to Drmies' above remark.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Drmies and Rainer. Rereading this article now, I would say about 60% of it is extraneous crap that adds little or nothing to the reader's understanding of the subject. I like that word "delete," it has a fresh, wholesome ring to it. Rumiton (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirect for discussion
Individuals involved in this article may be interested in this discussion: Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_1. Cirt (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Updates
We put a lot of work into improving the article under Steve's mediation, but some of the material never made it here. I've posted a new intro that is an improvement over the existing one, and added the Lifestyle section that we drafted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Performed some tweaks. Note that the intro has two fact templates now, which I think should be remedied ASAP. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing those. I have a question about the first cite request. It follows this sentence:
 * ''When he died in 1966, Rawat was proclaimed "satguru" or "Perfect Master",[7] and succeeded his father as the spiritual leader of five million followers in India.'
 * I presume the request covers the second clause. That clause contains four facts: succession, spiritual leadership, 5 million followers, and India. Can we say which of those facts needs an explicit reference? (I assume we can take the last as covered in other sources).   ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Five million may be an underestimation, see Prem Rawat (I can't remember ever having seen estimates of number of DLM followers around the time Hans Ji died and Rawat became the new spiritual leader of the movement). Anyway, I suppose a ref would be obtainable from the previous mediation discussion: when I added the "fact" tag there was "... five million followers in India.[60]" (my bolding). I didn't follow that discussion very closely at the time, so I suppose someone might still remember what "[60]" stood for originally. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've got a source for five million in 1972 or 1973. I've got a newspaper source for 3 million from 1971 - "... he claims to have three million followers around the world..." ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

So much for seeking consensus, Will. Basically, you have added one large section about which there is no consensus, and replaced the lead on the same basis. Why? Care to explain the rationale for such an unilateral move? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So what does a good Wikipedian do? From past experience, if this badly written, poorly phrased and malevolently chosen stuff is allowed to remain, it will soon be claimed it is there by "consensus." Advice, anyone? Rumiton (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Both added sections are improvements to the article. The old lead had a lot of problems and the lifestyle issues weren't handled fully. If there are specific problems with the text please identify them and we can fix them. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think there are things about Wikipedia that you are consistently not getting. No one editor can say "Both added sections are improvements." It is up to all involved editors to agree about it. That is called consensus. Rumiton (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to remind all involved that consensus should result in an article that perhaps none of us would have written, but which we all can live with. There is no way of subverting this process. I have reverted the article to the version immediately before these large, unconsensed changes were made. Let's discuss any proposed changes. Rumiton (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Consensus" is not a policy reason to delete neutral, sourced material. What specific problem do you have that you reverted those contributions to the article? The intro that you reverted to is not better, in my opinion. Are you arguing that it is? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree Rumiton. Will BeBack is breaking all the rules.Momento (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Which rules? And why was this neutral, sourced information removed? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless specific policy reasons for the deletion of this material are provided (more than "I don't like it") I'll restore it. To quote another editor, "BLPs do not preclude the inclusion of well sourced material. The only interpretation possible is that some editors consider that material to be negative to the subject of the article, but that, I am afraid, is not how Wikipedia articles are developed." ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "To quote another editor"? What kind of policy statement is that? I suggest you read and take seriously WP:BLP. The changes you inserted were neither improving nor neutral. In fact, you have deleted genuinely neutral and reputable sources because they conflicted with your point of view. You took out informative statements on the Knowledge Prem Rawat teaches. You took out the very significant fact that his teachings evolved in the west away from their Hindu origins, and you removed mention of his founding of the TPRF, for reasons I can only speculate on. You expanded Mishler's claims to unnecessary and repetitive length and removed the context from the pie attack. You want to say it happened "at one point" and not that it happened at a public meeting arranged by Detroit authorities to present Prem Rawat with a municipal award. Your word choice, in the context you have created, implies that "pieing" is a harmless example of lese-majesty. In fact it is a criminal assault, both physical and emotional, and people have been jailed for it. In "Lifestyle" you have deleted mention that Prem Rawat's father was considered a "Satguru" by great numbers of Indian followers, and now introduce him only as "wealthy high caste." Then there is the childish-sounding "extremely affluent." Affluent means "abounding in riches." (OED) The adverb is an unnecessary reinforcement, clearly made in case someone didn't get the point you were making. You entice the reader with hanging implications of tax fraud (possibly tax-exempt auto purchases) but nowhere report that he has never been found guilty of any misbehaviour. You want to say "critics have complained that his lifestyle was supported by the donations of followers" which implies that donations made to him in the early days were somehow kept secret. You have repeated unattributed hearsay: "...a follower told a reporter." Trivially, you have changed the correct word "aircraft" to the incorrect "aircrafts." Rumiton (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I take BLP as seriously as any other editor here. But BLP doesn't mean that sourced, neutral information may be removed for no reason. Addressing the "lifestyle" section isssues: The father is already described as a guru in the "Childhood" section. If you think "extremely" is redundant that's a minor issue. I don't think there's an implication of fraud if we don't say that there was fraud. We can say that there were investigated but never charged. I don't see how there's an implication that donations were kept secret. Thanks for pointing out the error with "aircrafts". I'll restore the section and address those issues.
 * Regarding the intro, the founding of TPRF should be mentioned in the chronological order, in the "2000s" section. I don't see where anything about the pieing was mentioned. There are questions about whether the teachings had a Hindu origin. They generally described as being derived from Sant Mat. Is there a source for the "Hindu origins"? As for the rest, this is an intro - it should be short and reflect the overall article. The current intro that you restored doesn't do so. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps in order to mitigate the impression of a blatant lack of neutrality in the "lifestyle"-section it might be added, that Rawat never had income through his teachings or through the initiation into the techniques, all of which were and are free. So donations really are donations. And there are other sources of income. Hm? And that Rawat has been travelling the by large bigger part of his lifetime, which is certainly more relevant for his lifestyle than the brand of car he drives and less merely envy-eliciting. Could that be properly sourced?--Rainer P. (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There are sources that say the teachings are free, and there are also sources that mention demands for money. I know that whole matter of whether he loves of donations or off of investment income was discussed previously. I'll see if I can find that thread and if any sources were listed. As for travelling most of his life, I don't know where we'd find a source for that. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't find that old thread on income. Maybe someone else who was involved in the discuss can remember better when it occurred. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Not the vases again ... please. :-) Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 21:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember we had versions of the lifestyle section that were at least closer to getting consensus. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 21:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The vases incident is sourced, but in the interest of accommodation I've removed it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps some editors are confusing the concept and notion of "biased" with "factual," not to mention "well-sourced," and "accurate." The lede version that Will placed into the article much more accurately depicts the history of Rawat's early life, it's more factual, and the information is well-sourced.  The lede version that has been reverted is a whitewash of Rawat's true biography.  In short, it's nothing more than revisionism, that is biased in favor of how Rawat is being promoted today  The fact is that Prem Rawat became a guru at the age of eight, not a "speaker on the subject of inner peace."  To state his beginnings otherwise is a blatantly biased whitewash of the facts.  The lede version worked upon when we were in mediation with Steve Crossin is the best version and the one that should be used.  I would support reinserting that version.  Thanks!  :)  Sylviecyn (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see anyone actually defending the old lede. I'm going to restore it, add a mentions of the Glastonbury and the the appropriate chronological sections. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Re : Francis, I think it is proper to begin with what Rawat is today, whether we cite that to Cagan or not. He is a speaker on inner peace, has been for many years, it's what he does today; failing Cagan's admissibility in this context, there are press reports attesting to it. I am not comfortable with simply stating what he used to be at age 8 and 13 in the lede, and never arriving in the present. Cheers, Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 01:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Example: Jimmy Carter starts with two paragraphs on what he was when he was best known worldwide, then follows a paragraph on what he has been doing since. The article does not start in this way: "James Earl "Jimmy" Carter Jr. (born October 1, 1924) is a peace negotiator..." --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not quite the same, is it? Carter was an elected world leader for 4 years, he was 56 and close to retirement age when he left office, after the pinnacle of his career. Whereas Rawat has arguably been doing the same job since age 8. In sentence 2, we are referring to Knowledge, in the present tense, but at the end of the first sentence he's still 13. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 08:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Can't we split the difference somehow? Something like, "he was a guru from age eight to 32, and is now an inspirational speaker." He achieved his greatest prominence and following as a guru, and he used that title for more than a dozen years, but it's also been a long time since then. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree we have to find some way to split the difference; I had hoped to do that with this version. Is that so far off? Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 09:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a slightly different issue, but the "...who offers instruction in four meditation techniques he calls Knowledge" clause may be part of the problem. That's a topic of its own and deserves a sentence of its own. If we split that off we're left with "Prem Pal Singh Rawat ... is a speaker on the subject of inner peace." How about something more like "[He] ... became a guru at age eight with a following of millions and is now an inspirational speaker. His message is inner peace and he teaches the four meditation techniques he calls Knowledge". Would that cover it?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In a way he is probably still considered a guru in India. Maybe something like: “In India he became a guru at age eight with a following of millions and is now internationally an inspirational speaker. His message is inner peace and he teaches a combination of four meditation techniques he calls Knowledge".--Rainer P. (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes Will, I think something along those lines might work. We should probably lose the "the" before meditation techniques – "he teaches four meditation techniques he calls Knowledge". Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 10:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rainer's version looks fine to me, though it'd have to be more like, "[He]... became a guru in India at age eight..." Any objections to it? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's good too. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 11:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Per this discussion, I've edited it to: [He] ... became a guru in India at age eight with a following of millions and is now internationally an inspirational speaker. His message is inner peace and he teaches a combination of four meditation techniques he calls "Knowledge". ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please consider editors in different time zones before declaring a discussion resolved. He is definitely still considered a guru in India, his name there is still Guru Maharaj Ji. I recall him saying a couple of years ago that he "cringed" when he heard the term inspirational speaker, but there may be no more accurate term in English for his current role. So I can live with that. There are some areas that still need improving, apart from the tedious length and repetitiveness of the article. I will make a start. Rumiton (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "...now..." is bad style (per Wikipedia's MoS) - can we get rid of it?
 * "inspirational speaker" definitely needs a solid source, "internationally" is a rather odd addition imho.
 * "with a following of millions" - unnecessarily vague (MoS) - numbers re. "following" are given further in the intro, and there is a separate section devoted to this further down in the article, why do we need another, and this time vague, assertion about this in the first paragraph? --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "internationally" is meant to address the change from the "Indian" beginnings. This is definitely a noteable issue.--Rainer P. (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Inspiration speaker" has many sources available. I don't know if any of them say when he picked up that title, which is why "now" is useful - it avoids pinning down the timing on the shift from guru to speaker. If we could say "since the 1990s" or something like that then that'd be better yet. Next best would be saying something like "as of" or "as early as" of even "by". You're probably right about the "millions" being repetitive, but having had a large following at that age is a major component of his notability so it'd be nice, but not necessary, to get that in early. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And just to point it out again, we need a source for "Rawat's supporters and independent studies have credited him with helping people experience inner peace". While I presume it's true, it should still be sourced. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Jayen, your version reads well and seems balanced. I hope you will feel free to suggest inclusion of parts of it in the current article. Re the Charisma and leadership section, it doesn't seem to have emerged entirely from the Dutch, and as it stands it really doesn't make much sense. If I can figure out what it is trying to say, I will try to improve the section. The paragraph on the smuggling incident could profitably be deleted, and not because it shows PR in a poor light -- it doesn't. He was 14 years old; his secretary screwed up; his mother got defensive; the Indian government apologised. This tells us nothing about the subject of this article, but the way the world press treated the story tells us a great deal about them. Perhaps if it remains included, that point could be made. Rumiton (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia so length is not a problem. If we have more to add from reliable sources then that's fine. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not fine. This was the reason a wise Wikipedia GA admin a year ago criticised the article for being "bloated." To be informative on its subject, an article needs to be concise and relevant. Blowing this or any article out by stuffing it with peripheral material just because some source wrote it is another form of vandalism, and must stop. Rumiton (talk) 14:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Moved the disputed material "lifestyle" to the chronology, and restored the aviation interests section. The material in the "lifestyle" section does not have consensus. Editors should consider revisiting the other proposals made duering the mediation process, that had as much consensus as the current material/ ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That was a clumsy edit, Jossi. You unintentionally reverted several edits by other editors. I'm going to try to undo those while retaining your edits. Do we have a secondary sourced for the invention? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That was not "clumsy" that was purposefully done. In any case, I would argue for the replacement of the "lifestyle" material and use the material from the other proposal as per below text. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You intended to delete "inspirational speaker" from the intro? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If so, please explain why you think that term should be deleted. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Section break
This proposal is better and there are others at User:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat/Proposal7:

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That version omits a lot of sourced, neutral information that's now in the article. Some of this that isn't in the article could be added though. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That was a proposal, like any other. I do not understand why the proposal you chose is better sourced, more relevant, or more neutral than many others that were made on that proposal page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a problem with the sourcing? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All I am saying, Will, that there are other valid proposals on the table, and that the discussion was not completed and we have no consensus on what to use for the article. Resuming that discussion, without pre-conditions, would be the way to seek consensus from participants. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's an active discussion. But please don't delete sourced information from the article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite a lot of sourced information needs to be deleted from this article to arrive at something that is informative and readable. If an article is seen as being deliberately bloated, it could be seen as a form of vandalism. See my comments above. Rumiton (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If the article is too long we can always split material off into another article. Since we have a whole article on teachings, for example, we can cut that section down to a much shorter summary. But in general length isn't a problem, since this isn't a paper encyclopedia. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. Not all material is useful, or necessary even if mentioned by sources. The balance of an article is based on an editorial judgment about which there is consensus of editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "This is getting out of hand. There are no substantive arguments for excluding well sourced and neutral presentation of material. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a sufficient argument." ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT is related to arguments to avoid in AfD discussions. This has nothing to do with the current discussion. I could retort by saying that your argument falls into WP:USEFUL, WP:INTERESTING. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If the information is reliably sourced, neutrally presented, and relevant to the life of the subject, then it shouldn't be removed except with a consensus of editors. Are there any specific problems with specific text? If so let's address those. Quoting a GA review from 19 months ago about a substantially different version doesn't help improve the current article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please re-read WP:CONSENSUS ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's keep this discussion on topic. Is there any specific text in the article that you have an issue with? If so please say what it is so we can address it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Mind=ego
This was added and cited to Downton's Sacred Journeys. Which page? I'm having trouble locating it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (premies use "mind" and "ego" interchangeably)


 * p. 181. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And is that what it says on page 181? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No it isn't. There is a quote from Rawat on page 181 that where he talks about "mind" and "ego" but he does not use the terms interchangeably.  There is nothing on how premies use the term, and I am surprised Jossi is claiming there is.  I suggest the claim is removed. --John Brauns (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. p.24: Premies uses 'mind' and 'ego' interchangeably ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So it's a verbatim quotation? If so that's yet another time that one editor in particular has copied material without marking it as quoted. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes it's a verbatim quote, but although it's there, it's not part of a discussion of the two terms. It's actually a bracketed comment by the author in the middle of a premie's personal account.  Personally I don't think it is true that we used the terms interchangably - I certainly didn't - so although it is sourced, IMO the lack of supporting analysis in the text reduces its value for the article.  --John Brauns (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * John, with all sincerity, a lot of these things depended on the country you were in and the particular mahatma you were blessed (or cursed) with. I travelled internationally (mostly in Europe) in my job throughout the late 70s and was astonished at the differences I found. I saw places where drug induced near-cretinism was praised as being of "no mind." In Australia, I think mind and ego were used to mean the same thing. Every country was fervently of the opinion that the take they had on the whole thing was the only correct one, and direct from Maharaji. In short, there was no "we." Rumiton (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Since we already have an article on teachings, and since this article is long, why don't we move it all over there and leave a paragraph here? Summary style. We discussed doing this months ago but it never happened.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The lead
Is it no longer necessary to discuss edits to this article before making them? Particularly the lead.Momento (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I reverted this edit: because it made new assertions not contained in the listed source. Please find a snew source that supports the material before adding it in front of a citation. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Added sources, and reverted the unexplained deletion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

New subsection for "Reception" section (proposal)
To be inserted after the "Charisma and leadership" subsection

The refs are maybe still a bit sketchy, but hopefully clear enough. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Too much OR and SYNTH for my liking. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 18:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And no context or fairness.Momento (talk) 05:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Associating Rawat with the term "cult leader" is disputed on several grounds:" is ridiculously NPOV. No one is "associating" they are saying he was/is a cult leader!


 * "Disputed on several grounds?" Serious POV push. Why not just report the facts, like: "And other disagree, saying:, ." Hohohahaha (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionnary, CULT is “a system of religious beliefs and ritual; a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious”, and SECT is “a dissenting or schismatic religious body, especially one regarded as extreme or heretical; b: a religious denomination”. If a cult or sect is a “system of religious beliefs and rituals” or a “dissenting schismatic religious” body, a club of para-psychologists, UFO fans, spiritists, organizations of pscychological or spiritual studies, etc. are not sects.

Who decides what is a cult or sect and what not? It is of course a problem of semantics, just like the Catholic and Protestant interpretation of the same Bible with different semantics. A Spanish dictionary gives Islam as example of a sect, but whatever dictionaries, sociologists or psychologists say, what most people understand by “cult” and “sect” is a 1) more or less small religious group with 2) a specific life-style, 3) usually living separately in a community, 4) following a set of rules, as the Merriam-Webster mentions, usually "extreme" and 5) where freedom is often more limited than for believers of traditional, large, standard religious churches. People make dictionnaries, not scholars.

Prem Rawat has clearly and repeatedly declared that his (inner) Knowledge is not a religion nor a philosophy, does not ask anyone to stop or start believing anything, no dogmas, no rules, no rituals, no liturgy, no change of lifestyle, so why is this a sect? Prem Rawat only asks to practice at least one hour every day, alone, at home, in silence. I see this closer to a club than to a sect Osho Baghwan style. Both were born in India but there is almost nothing else in common. How easily we generalize. In the Spanish version I have read an ex-follower who feels deceived saying that "Prem's techniques don't work". Many do not have the willpower to practice for long (expecting, with wishful thinking, it will work like magic in a short time), despite having promised to practice for long or for life, and then they feel restless, because only meditation can calm the mind and bring peace, and some even blame Prem, feeling "deceived" at not getting whatever they expected as early, and as easily, as they expected.

Many people, both followers and non-followers, do not know that these are not "Prem's techniques", he did not invent them, but learned them from his father, who learned them from his guru, who learned them from his, etc. These techniques, or similar, have been practiced for thousands of years. In ancient times from Krishna, to Buddha to Jesus. They are mentioned in the Baghavad gita, and Yogananda mentions bible sentences which refer to meditation. "Be still and know that I am God" and "In the enjoyment of the Lord I die everyday" can't be better descriptions of Samadhi. Yogananda and others say, and many believe, that Jesus travelled to India from 14 to 30 years old, learned meditation and taught it privately to the 12 apostles. See "The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ" in Wikipedia. The techniques are mentioned also in modern times in the books of Sivananda, Vivekananda (in his book "Concentration and Meditation"), Yogananda (in his books "God talks with Arjuna", "The Second Coming of Jesus the Christ" and "The Yoga of Jesus", perhaps in others), etc.

Prem Rawat has not invented anything, this was "invented" a long time ago, Prem just explains in a simple way, for all kinds of people, what Yogananda and others explained in a technical, intellectual way, different, for me also beautiful, with all the intricacies of the "spiritual technology" of yoga and meditation and sophisticated explanations which are nonetheless useless without practice, as they all said. --Pedrero (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Pedrero, you need to understand that this is not the place to express your beliefs, no matter how sincere. This talk page is for discussion of changes to the Wikipedia article on Prem Rawat, and such changes need to be backed up with reliable sources.  There are no such sources for the claims you make.  --John Brauns (talk) 01:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well said John. Hohohahaha (talk) 03:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right, John, sorry, and thanks for the warning, but I do not understand why critics are accepted but not defence. What claims I make do you want sources for?--Pedrero (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * All significant viewpoints that can be found in reliable sources are appropriate to include. Can you point to the reference works that include the assertions you'd like to include? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, "Will Beback", I will provide references for the connection of Prem's teachings and tecniques with old and modern yoga traditions, something that is missing in the article, but in my opinion important and not known by many people, followers and not, who know about Prem, but not about yoga. But it will take some time, please be patient. Sorry if my comments were too long, I know better now.--Pedrero (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Information about the meditation and yoga traditions would be better suited in the Teachings of Prem Rawat article. Also, if you intend to go into any depth about the meditation and yoga, then it only makes sense that the four Knowledge meditation techniques be described.  I don't see how one can get around doing that.  Concerning Maharaji's role in DLM/EV, he has been the spiritual leader and titular head of DLM/EV since DLM's establishment in 1971.  It really had nothing to do with Maharaji not being of majority age, but about the purpose of the DLM/EV's establishment, as stated in its Colorado Articles of Incorporation, in Article III, "Object and Purposes:"


 * To provide and operate an institution dedicated to the uplifting of ignorance by giving the Knowledge of God as revealed by the Perfect Master, Balyogeshwar Parm Hans Sat Gurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaji (known as Guru Maharaj [sic]), the purpose or purposes of said organization being exclusively spiritual, religious, charitable, educational, and scientific.


 * You can find these articles of incorporation if you search the Colorado Secretary of State's Business Division, looking for the 1971 Articles of Incorporation, listed under document history for Divine Light Mission or Elan Vital (same corporation). Sylviecyn (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Sylviecyn, you are right, I had also thought of writing it instead in the "Teachings of Prem Rawat", and I had also thought about what you say of how to mention the connection of Prem's techniques with yoga and the Bible without detailing Prem’s techniques so I can keep my promise, but, as you rightly say, that is not easy.


 * I could quote literally many sentences of Prem Rawat that echo things you may read in yoga books or the Bible, and ancient masters mencioned by Prem, but of course someone could say what does that prove? And many, or perhaps most Wikipedia readers, would say that the Bible is not a "reliable source", so I have given up writing anything about Prem Rawat, his techniques or his teachings, and let people think whatever they want. I will just continue translating yoga articles from the English Wikipedia for the Spanish one, that is also a pleasure for me.


 * I would like to add that it is true that in the beginning things were more religious-related and sect-like, as it was for thousands of years, but after Prem changed all that for the first time in known history, to make it easier for people all over the world, and as for aprox. two decades it has all been stripped of religious or cultural attachments, I do not see why everything is still described as it was 30 years ago.


 * I do not see what reason there is to remind in 2008 what the Divine Light Mission was or was not, since it does not exist any more for Prem Rawat nor for premies, even if it is so present in the minds of many ex-premies. Again, let people write and think whatever they want. Prem is just doing the same as Yogananda did: follow his guru’s request to go to the West and spread the inner Knowledge of the soul because the West needs it. Since I do not want to write anything in Prem's articles, perhaps I will start a new one comparing Yogananda and Prem. Or Jesus, Yogananda and Prem. Even if in the end I do not put it in Wikipedia either, it will be a pleasure. It is incredible how different are Jesus, Yogananda and Prem, aren't they? How could you ever compare them? Well, they all did the same: they came from the east and spread "something" in the west.


 * Thanks for your comments.--Pedrero (talk) 04:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Pedrero. While I am full of respect for where you are coming from and understand your frustration, I don't think you have "got" Wikipedia yet. The reason the situation of 30 years ago is being highlighted is that the researchers of that time were paid by religious organisations, sociological institutes and other concerned groups to look into Prem Rawat's activities, which seemed to (perhaps did) present a threat to their worldviews. A lone teacher of apparently only four meditation techniques and founder of a rather small global charitable institute just doesn't appear on their radar, so there are very few modern sources. On Wikipedia, no one can say, "Well, this is what I know to be the truth and it should go in the article." We are not reputable sources and will just get accused of wp:soapboxing or worse. I suggest you look for scholarly sources who say what you believe to be true. There may be some more out there. Spanish sources are worth a look also. Rumiton (talk) 10:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Rumiton. I appreciate very much your comments. I understand it is difficult for Wikipedia to keep a neutral balance since, let us be honest, nobody is neutral about almost anything, let alone ideological issues. When I first saw Prem’s biography in English a few weeks ago I found it very critical, even before I read the Spanish one. The English version is inflated about DLM times (could almost be transposed as part of the article on DLM), repeated comments about Prem’s wealth, (few know that Krishna was guru and king, as is usual in Satya Yugas). If he took his family to a slum to prove his truthfulness critics would find something else, as some look at what he says, and some at what he does, and we see what we want to see. So he was the "leader of the DLM sect or cult" until his mother "dismissed him" as leader. Who was the DLM leader then? Also repeated references to his divinity, though he never claimed to be God, but the opposite is true, Prem says it is wrong to say "we are God" but right to say that "God is within each of us", so it seems some want him to be the only exception. I love Wikipedia, and find it is a serious and accurate source of information and not a loudspeaker of any ideology, but, sorry to say, this article seems an unfortunate exception. As a follower I can't be more partial, true, but that does not make me automatically wrong. It is not so important, fortunately Wikipedia is not only in English and articles are not just literal translations, wich is logical, better so, not so boring. After all the article echoes what mainstream media said in the seventies about Prem, and forty years later we have learned something more about mainstream media. It is good we have Internet and Wikipedia, and I hope they will never become too "mainstream".
 * Later on I have been reading, in other websites, people saying Wikipedia is biased in favour of Prem. It is all funny. It seems it can hardly be good enough to satisfy premies nor bad enough to satisfy critics, specially ex-premies, as many of them were truth seekers until they found Prem, then it often took them years to discover that Prem was not a true master or guru, (even though some were close to him), and after that, instead of going somewhere else to find the true one, they remained Prem’s “followers” for life, just to criticize his early DLM times, even decades afterwards.
 * The only solution would be to have two articles, one by critics and one by premies, and a third one for debates, which could be fascinating, what about a Wikipedia Forum? I don’t want to write too long again. Thanks Rumiton, I will write something more for you (as fellow translator rather than premie) in your personal Wikipedia page, including some funny things.--Pedrero (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Pedrero, articles about contentious topics often end up in a middle ground which proponents think is too critical and opponents think is too sympathetic. However splitting this article would not be a solution. That was done several years ago and it didn't turn out well. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The proposed sub-section has a number of weaknesses. The primary weakness is that the references for Maharaji being a cult leader comprises two statements in newspaper articles that he is, but without any discussion of those claims, in any form. Indeed, the articles have nothing to do with "cult leadership". Clearly, there are no grounds for a discussion of whether Maharaji is a cult leader when two newspaper articles have headlined this in passing. One of the reasons Wikipedia is not accepted as a source with any authority is because many of the claims made in many of of its topics are based on inadequate evidence and argument. To make a legitimate claim to authenticity, some evidence and argument must be presented. There are numerous policies relating to this; all have been mentioned in this context before, over many years. Errol V (talk) 10:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not correct NPOV-wise to exclude information from Wikipedia's main namespace based on the fact that this information is available from a few newspaper headlines, and BTW also from a Zondervan publication.
 * Maybe less than a separate subsection should be devoted to this, but not being discussed at all makes that the article doesn't comply to the fairly important NPOV policy as far as I can tell. There are other POV issues with the article I'd be prepared to discuss, but maybe this one is a good one to start with. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've read your comments a couple of times, Francis, but I am at a loss to decipher them. Please recast. Errol V (talk) 01:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Was my reference to WP:NPOV unclear? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I did better than Errol, I read what you wrote 5 times. To paraphrase: "To achieve a neutral article we have to include all significant viewpoints, including the perhaps minority claim that Prem Rawat was/is a cult leader. Even if this view only comes from a few newspaper headlines, we still need to cover it." Have I understood you correctly? Rumiton (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that, apart from the mentioned newspaper headlines, there's also a Zondervan publication, and apparently also a Tyndale House publication. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I might add that those are just the sources which use the exact phrase "cult leader". There are many, many more that call the DLM a "cult" and Prem Rawat its "leader" or "head", but don't use the words right next to each other. Clearly, the assertion that Prem Rawat was a cult leader is a significant point of view. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Even an encyclopedia doesn't contain every piece of detritus that has been printed in a newspaper. That's one point. The second is that assertions are not fact. They are assertions and as such have not been tested against evidence. Neither articles mentioned as references discusses the relationship between Rawat and cults. All they do is mention in a headline that Rawat is a cult leader. I understand that many people in this discussion have an agenda. That's always been the case. But Wikipedia will never become an authoritative source until such time as its material meets the policies such as verifiability, and others, that is the basis for any useful work. So, the material that appears in a Wiki entry must have been tested; that is the method for determining accuracy. That a point of view is asserted is not a rigorous method of determining anything. A "viewpoint" is nothing. It does not help anybody come to any understanding. History is littered with untested assertions about various things and various people, and that does not make for happy reading.

Some quotes from "Policy Verifiability": "The source cited must directly support the information as it is presented in the article." The two newspaper articles quoted do not support the information. They simply state it, without any substantive evidence. Jimmy Wales wrote: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." In this case, the random speculation is not on the part of the writer of the article, but on the part of the newspaper article writer. However, that random speculation should not be the source of the claim, nor does it legitimate the claim of the article. Errol V (talk) 10:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Those statements don't reflect with the research on this topic. The DLM was widely characterized as a "cult" or "sect" and Prem Rawat/Guru Maharaj Ji was universally acknowledged as its leader. Now I'm not saying that the text proposed above is right for the article. But this topic is not just a matter of "detritus that has been printed in a newspaper". See below for some related sources. As for viewpoints, they are the foundation of this encyclopedia. Wikipedia's unique neutral point of view policy requires that we include all significant viewpoints, and present them neutrally with appropriate weight. You may also be unaware of the verifiability policy. It says, essentially that assertions must be verifiable, not necessarily true. One way of stating the task of Wikipedia editors is "summarizing reliable sources using the neutral point of view". So if we have ten sources that say X, and 3 sources that say Y, we report both without indicating which one is correct. Also, saying that many editors have agendas doesn't help the discussion. It implies that some editors are free from agendas. Can anyone here certify that they don't care about the topic one way or the other? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is disputable that Prem Rawat was the primary focus of all those people, and can loosely be called their leader. Some may have seen the DLM as a cult, but to then call him a "cult leader" is a form of synthesis that is going too far. Rumiton (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I must be missing something. I just did a word search of the article and couldn't find the words "cult leader" in the text nor in the footnotes and resources sections.  Is it being proposed that this article be purged of all sources that use the word cult? That would included the titles of newspaper/magazine articles and published books (some by scholars of NRMs) which are all reliable sources.  Btw, adherents of Prem Rawat freely refer to him as their "Master," currently, therefore I don't understand how that is "loosely" referring to him as their leader.  Sylviecyn (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In my book, a master is a person who has mastered something and therefore qualifies as a teacher for people who desire to master the same field. You would not follow a master home, unless he invites you to. A leader is something different, although superficially there are similarities. A leader is not necessarily a teacher. From him you might learn to lead, but whom would you lead? You can install or opt out a leader, but not a master. People who don’t wish to learn from a master do not lessen his mastership. So, “master” signifies Rawat more precisely than “leader”. And “cult” is merely a fighting word and should be used with appropriate distance in an encyclopedia, no need to push it.--Rainer --[[Special:Contributions/84.87.252.20|84.87.252.20 (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)P.]] (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Arguments based on semantics don't affect our editing, or shouldn't It doesn't matter whether we think that the best title for Rawat/GMJ is "lord", "master", "leader", "guru", etc. What matters is what reliable sources say. And all of those descriptions have been used for the subject. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The English and the Spanish version of the article on Prem Rawat are very different. I like the Spanish version much more. But I admit that I can't be more biased, because I am Spanish. Without references, in the English version there are 4,553 words - in Spanish 2,644 w - German 2,010 w - Danish 1,451 w - French 487 w.--Pedrero (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Errol V when he says that the fact that a newspaper comes up with a headline is not reason enough to insert it in Wikipedia automatically, specially about a living person, since we all know that headlines are usually more sensationalist than accurate or truthful. And I am sad to read what Willbeback says that if 10 sources say X and 3 say Y, both have to be in Wikipedia in the same proportions, because this implies that Wikipedia tries to mirror the general media panorama, which in my opinion (and rather fast growing opinion) in the US, and other places, is composed of aprox. 70-80% mainstream media, mainly misinforming (often lying), and serving special interests, and a 20-30% independent, alternative media, mainly serving general interest, and mainly saying the truths that mainstream media hides or distorts. I repeat I love Wikipedia so it is sad that perhaps Rumiton was more right than I thought when I first read his comment that I have not "got" Wikipedia yet. Pedrero (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Pedrero, the problem we've been having here is that some editors have said that the mainstream media sources shouldn't be used because of their bias towards cult-like groups while non-mainstream media sources shouldn't be used because they aren't mainstream. Liberal papers shouldn't be used because they're liberal. Facts that appear in many sources shouldn't be used because they're just copying each other. Works by scholars who are Christian, Sikh, etc, can't be used, they say, because they are biased. We're told we shouldn't even quote the subject because he's open to misinterpretation. If I understand correctly, the only source good enough for some editors here is Ron Geaves. However the overall project has its own set of rules and those are what we follow. I encourage you to read them. WP:V and WP:RS. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Relevant sources

 * Leader
 * MAHARAJ JI, GURU Dec. 10, 1957- Indian spiritual leader Moritz 1974
 * In talking about their recent trip west they tell some delightful tales of the 14-year-old Indian leader talking to them and guiding them one minute and the next speeding around in an auto, or pushing one of his mahatmas into a swimming pool or gorging himself on one of his delights, Baskin and Bobbins ice cream. Magee, Doug, "Bennington's Divine Light Mission: Don't judge the book by the cover" Bennington Banner, Tuesday, August 8, 1972—3
 * In town to accept a testimonial resolution, Guru Maharaj Ji, the 15-year-old Indian religious leader, was struck with a shaving-cream pie hurled by a bearded illwisher. TIME Aug. 20, 1973
 * The crowd, including some 3,000 young Americans and other foreigners, sang "The Lord of the Universe Has Come to Us," as they waited for the plane carrying their leader to arrive from New York. "Devotees Hail Guru In India" NEW DELHI, UPI Nevada State Journal Nov. 8, 1972, p.13
 * Probably dozens of other newspaper mentions.
 * The Divine Light Mission used to be one of the most sensational guru movements, for it was headed by the child guru Maharaj Ji, who claims to be "The Lord of the Universe." Aagaard, Johannes, "Who Is Who In Guruism?" tirsdag, 30 november 1999 01:00
 * This analysis examines the case of Divine Light Mission, a 1970's New Religious Movement whose leader and doctrine came from India.
 * Friedman recounts, with healthy skepticism, the young guru's history — how at his father's funeral Maharaj Ji proclaimed himself leader of the movement which now claims upwards of 3 million followers in India. Rose, Stephen C., "The Guru on Fourteenth Street", ''the christian CENTURY' January 19, 1972. p.68
 * This study examines one such religious leader, Guru Maharaj Ji of the Divine Light Mission....Among the most common titles given to the leader of the Divine Light Mission are those of guru, satguru, and Perfect Master...The spiritual leader of the D.L.M. is an ambivalent figure and so is the world view of the devotees. Saliba 1980
 * This leader of some five million devotees is really a child and a lover of machine-age toys: cars, airplanes, stereos, rock band equipment, even computers, which fascinate him. Messer 1974
 * The movement suffered setbacks when Millennium 1973 at the Astrodome failed to attract the crowds expected and when the young leader and his mother feuded, but it appears to have regained momentum in the last two years. Bruce Campbell, SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS, p.369
 * The leader of the Divine Light Mission (DLM), the Guru Maharaji, was 13 years old when he spectacularly rose to fame in the early 1970s. Hunt 2003
 * Guru Maharaj Ji's mother did not approve of his marriage to his American secretary and dismissed him as the movement's leader. Derks & van der Lans 1983
 * Its recently dethroned leader, Balyogeshwar alias Guru Maharaj Ji, was claimed to be "the brightest event in the history of the planet" by Rennie Davis, a leading American revolutionary of the sixties, who later became a devotee of Guru Maharaj Ji... Balyogeshwar became the leader of the sect after his father's death on July 19, 1966 Mangalwadi 1987

Short version
Proposing to add:"Rawat has been termed a cult leader in popular press reports, and anti-cult writings."to the Prem Rawat section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That appears well-sourced, neutral and relevant. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The "students" section
This section is unbalanced and can be expanded with the many sources we have on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The whole thing should probably be moved to the teachings article. Some of it is also covered in the DLM article. The material there is not part of the subject's life story.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There's probably more material on "students", but the description of how "students" "(have) receive(d)" (= "reception") "Rawat" (= the person, not the teachings) has its place in the Rawat article, as part of the "Reception" section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Francis, would you mind rewriting that in a way that is more comprehensible? Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The description of how students received Rawat has its place in the Rawat article, as part of the "Reception" section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The text is unrelated on "how students received Rawat", as per discussion above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of the information on students may be best moved to the "following" section. I don't think we have any basis to draw a distinction between followers and students. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no distinction between followers and students, as far as this article is concerned (although there are primary sources, notably Rawat, who make such distinctions).
 * The "Following" subsection of the "Reception" section is currently primarily about numbers (throughout time), not on how followers/students/premies received Rawat.
 * Current content of the "[Reception by] students" subsection focuses on psychological aspects of how followers/students/premies received Rawat. Van der Lans is a psychologist of religion, Schnabel treats this psychological angle in the part of his book where the cites for this section come from.
 * There are several possibilities: numbers and psychological aspects of followers could be joined in one subsection; they could be kept in different subsections, but maybe with clearer titles (showing that there's no aspect of "difference between followers and students"), and there are probably more possibilities.
 * I quite like the flow of the current Reception section: (1) facts and figures about following; (2) Reception in the popular press and media; (3) sociological aspects of reception; (4) psychological aspects of reception by followers; (5) Reception by former followers. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That does not quite work, Francis. The reception section should not include psychological/sociological aspects of students/followers. It has nothing to do with it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't misquote:
 * "sociological aspects of reception"
 * "psychological aspects of reception by followers"
 * (bolding added) is what I wrote above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I quite like this paragraph a lot and I especially like it exactly where it stands. It's not incomprehensible at all, has nothing to do with teachings, but it is about Rawat's students' perception/reception of him.  Perhaps it could use a couple of "thats" here or there for clarification, otherwise, it describes extremely well the pov and reception and perception of a student of Prem Rawat from his early days to the present time.  I think the paragraph should stay where it is because it adds excellent context, which I think is vital to a reader's understanding of Prem Rawat's relationship of being a guru/master/teacher to his students/premies/devotees.  Excellent.  Definitely keep. Sylviecyn (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"Charisma and leadership" section and customs incident
I am still trying to fathom just what the "Charisma and leadership" section means. After I successfully decipher it, I will advise whether I have an issue with it. In the meantime, the section on the absurd business of the impounded goods can go. This was something that happened around Prem Rawat when he was a child. It tells us nothing about him. If there is any point to be made from the affair it is that the world press at the time leapt onto the story and sensationalised it, and never (to my knowledge) reported the later apology, and that this was certainly a factor in his later turning away from the media. Rumiton (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sourced, neutral, relevant information should not be deleted. Whether or not the press reported the apology, we do. (Though there was an apology, apparently the money and jewelry was not returned). If being a child means that what happens is unimportant then logically we would start the article when the subject got married and became an emancipated minor. If the incident was "a factor in his later turning away from the media" then that adds to its relevance, though of course we'd need a source for that assertion to go into the article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that the press did not report the apology after trumpeting the original story is highly significant. I don't think we need a source for that, it is obvious that such an unpleasant and unfair thing happening to a child would change his outlook. I never heard that the goods were never returned, but from my first hand experiences with Indian Customs I am not at all surprised. Rumiton (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Assuming that there was an apology. We only have one source for that, so it's dangerous to read too much into it. Overall, the subject had many experiences in his youth which I'm sure changed his outlook. Part of the value of reporting incidents like these is that they help the reader understand the subject.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that (the apology) would be an extraordinary claim under the circumstances. After making such a spectacle of themselves an apology would be expected. In the same section, the sentence that starts "David G. Bromley describes..." needs a careful look. Apart from the terrible standard of writing, it seems to be suggesting that Prem Rawat made claims of being above normal human situations; illness, debt, marriage etc. Sources would need to be found to support this. If there are none, it can be rewritten to make clear that no such claims were made. Or it can be deleted from the article. (Probably the best thing.) Over to everyone. Rumiton (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that an apology is an extraordinary claim, just that it is only reported by one scholar who doesn't cite his own source. While it may be "highly significant", to use your words, no one else appears to hold that view and we shouldn't draw conclusions from it. Regarding the Bromley bit I presume you mean the text in the "Charisma" section. While the writing can be improved the meaning appears to summarize Bromley's point correctly. Bromley didn't mean that individual leaders had made these claims, but that all charismatic leaders must appear to be "above normal human failings". The leader may not show physical infirmity or indulge in sensual pleasures, or else journalists will focus on those to discredit the leader in the eyes of the public and even his followers. The value of this material is that it explains why the press focuses on these supposed failings, and of how such coverage affects the perceptions of the leader. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All right, I can see that. And that is the point that could importantly be made. Tomorrow. Rumiton (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

OR
There's no source indicating a relation between "offering direct inner experience" and "lack of intellectual content" so Wikipedia should not present it as if they're connected This edit was undone for no apparent reason. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The edit did not indicate a relation. Can you explain how you came up with that conclusion? Here is the text:

It does not say A "but" B, or A "however" B, or A "nonetheless" B... it simply says A "and" B. Care to explain? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there a problem with splitting the sentence? Is there a need to join the two ideas into one sentence? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a problem in not splitting the sentence? It reads better in one sentence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a problem. They are two different concepts, with different sources. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really: Sources describe teachings related to direct experience that is based on feeling rather than intellect, and another source describes the teachings as lacking in intellectual content. Related indeed. W even have a source that links these assertions quite directly:




 * ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Melton is just one of the several sources we're using for this material. Furthermore, it makes more sense to devote a paragraph to his teachings, and then a follow up on criticism. The intro is now balanced.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not Melton, but in any case, it is a viewpoint that connects these two observations. I do not understand why are you arguing that is is no relevant, when obviously it is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Because one paragraph covers the subject's teaching, and the other paragraph covers criticism/reception. There are many connections that are drawn between different aspects of the subject, but we can't put them all in the intro. Let's keep the intro short and simple. We have plenty of room for the subtlelties and connections in the body of the article and in related articles. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So much important, well sourced material has been omitted from this article. I have started putting some back in. Glaring omissions include Rawat traveling to west against mother's wishes, free flights,firing Mishler, supporting his family, debt reduction, Downton on gifts etc.Momento (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why did you omit that material? ;) 04:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Every one is innocent. Fortunately Wiki history doesn't show us what an editor doesn't put in.Momento (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Pie Throwing/Detroit Incident
Why is the Detroit pie-throwing incident mentioned (recently changed from "pied" to "assaulted" by Rumiton) when the attack on Pat Halley isn't even mentioned? To include the insignificant event of Rawat receiving the Key to the City of Detroit and getting a shaving cream pie in his face (which I'm sure didn't cause any physical pain) but then exclude the brutal murder attempt on Pat Halley by a prominent close associate of Rawat's, Mahatma Fakiranand, and a DLM ashram resident, (who drove to his place in a DLM-registered car) is telling the least notable fact of the entire story. The whole story must be told or the entire Detroit thing left out. On that basis, I also strongly object to calling Rawat being pied an "assault." Sylviecyn (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that we are only telling half of the story. On the other hand, we tell the story in depth in the DLM article. Arguments can be made for putting the main coverage in either article: on the one hand it directly involved Rawat, and the coverage of it centered on him, while on the other hand the most important part was the beating committed by DLM members. I'm inclined to restore the text we had here earlier and add a link to the coverage in the DLM article, leaving everything pretty much as it was. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Pied sounds like a slapstick joke. It was an unprovoked assault on a kid. And that is serious.Momento (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Pied" is the correct term for someone who has received a pie in the face. According to the person responsible he even chose shaving cream to avoid damaging Rawat's suit. Certainly, all pieing is a form of assault, as is spitting, patting someone on the back, or any form of unwelcome touching. I'm not aware of any effort by Rawat or his followers to file assault charges. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason no charges were laid is that Prem Rawat publically forgave the reporter. Rumiton (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This summer the governor of my state was pied while walking in a 4th of July Parade. The guy who threw the pie was charged with simple assault.  The story was reported as the Governor being "pied."  Pieing is considered "simple assault" because there isn't direct physical contact or touching on the part of the perpetrator.  I stand by my assessment above.  The pieing incident is only notable because of the subsequent murder attempt.  So my suggestion is to have the whole story  here or in the DLM article, not bits and pieces here or there.  That said, if it is to be reported, the whole incident is better suited for this article, because it's not a story about DLM, it's a story that starts with the pieing of Prem Rawat.  Btw, the authorities didn't charge Halley for the pieing, but Mahatama Fakiranand and the ashram resident who perpetrated attempted murder were never charged with anything either.  Sylviecyn (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't recall any news account describing the pie incident as "assault". Regarding how we cover it, I think it's inevitable that we will have to mention the incident in both articles because it was important to both topics. Having a short summary in one article with a complete version in another is standard "summary style". While the story start with Rawat, and received plenty of press attention, by itself it isn't significant. If not for the beating we wouldn't report the incident. While we can speculate on Rawat's knowledge, there is no solid source that he knew about it ahead of time or ordered it. That's why I lean towards keeping it in the DLM article and just having a brief summary here. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no solid source? This is a pernicious insinuation. There is no source at all!! and no suggestion should be made otherwise. And we are writing in 2008, not 1973. A lot more is understood today about the effects of assault on vulnerable people, especially children and women. This was a child who had been invited to attend a public function in his honour, and was assaulted by having food thrown in his face. Yes, there are many forms of assault, and this is one of them. The word "pied" trivialises it. Regarding the later assault on Halley, I did not notice it had gone. I agree that it might be relevant to this article, as long as no hint is made that Rawat condoned, accepted, encouraged or even knew about it. It is in the same category as the Indian Customs incident, something that was done by adults who should have known better, and which impacted on his life. Rumiton (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

In which case the term "assault" can not be used for this incident. Policy. From WP:V:"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books."The terminology assault is in this case likely to be challenged (I do for one). Rumiton pleads "original research" for the inclusion of this term (where OR is a no-no in Wikipedia context). The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, if challenged or likely to be challenged the material should be attributed to a reliable, published source, etc. - according to WP:V. There's no way around it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See the New York Times refs in the Wikikepedia article on Pieing. Courts have determined that throwing a pie at someone is a criminal assault. Rumiton (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * From the pieing article: "In some US states 'pieing' may conform to definitions of battery, but not assault" - no idea what the definition in 1973 Detroit would be, so maybe best to take the precaution not to use terms of your own predilection, not covered by sources and possibly inappropriate for the occurrence at the given time. Note that there was no court proceeding at the time about the incident, so probably we will never know what qualification is "appropriate" according to the law system at the time, at the place, and given the composition of the involved pie and where the thrower managed to place it (and other parameters a judge might take into consideration). Following reliable sources for the qualifications is all we can do: concluding that it is by definition "assault" based on the fact that some other incident involving a pie (maybe an edible one) was called a "criminal assault" is still original research when no reliable source does that in connection with the incident we're talking about here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Referring to the subject as a helpless child with no responsibility for what was done around him is not an accurate characterization. Two years earlier he had travelled against the wishes of his mother (supposedly) and set up missions in the U.K. and U.S. Less than a year later he got marred and was declared an adult. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, I think we can assume that the subject approved of and knew of things done on his behalf or in his name. I'm not arguing that he knew or was aware of the beating before it happened. But this idea that he was merely a child with no authority over his followers is contrary to the evidence. As for the word "assault", we need a source for that, as Francis points out.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I never claimed he was "a helpless child with no responsibility for what was done around him." You are taking strawman arguments to extremes, something you have done before, and I ask you to stop doing it now. And your argument above contradicts itself. You seem to be trying to say that he was simultaneously aware of, and not aware of, what was done. Anyway, he was not helpless but he was a child, and the Wikipedia article on pie throwing describes it as criminal assault. Rumiton (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you call a 15-year male a "child" to his face? I expect you'd have an unhappy teenager if you did. Anyway, we're not using that word in the article so it's not important. Regarding your other point, the NYT and Wikipedia have articles on many topics. If I found one that says meditation is hooey would it be appropriate to include that 'fact' in this article? I expect I'd hear complaints. Anyway, I think the current language in the article is fine, and unless anyone has a compelling argument for further changes I'd say let's leave it as it is. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 15:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would not call a 60 year-old "old" to his/her face either, but it is true.Rumiton (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've changed the text to read "hit with a shaving cream pie". While "pied" is accurate, it's an odd word and not used by most sources, which tend to say "threw" or "hit". I also added a sentence on the beating to show the seriousness of the incident. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We have numerous sources saying that Rawat said "do not arrest or harm Halley", so the subsequent beating has zero to do with Rawat. This is an attempt at "guilt be association" and a particularly poor edit since Rawat's comments at the time were not included.Momento (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, we can include Rawat's comments. However to say that this article is about Rawat and not his followers is incorrect. We have sections on "following", "students", and "former followers". If we delete those then we can say that this article is just about Rawat. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you brought the subject up, "following", "students", and "former followers" should be in DLM or teachings but not here. This is a BLP and should be confined to the subject. I think they should be moved.Momento (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That'd be a major change and we should discuss it in a separate thread. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have included all the material that relates to Rawat's involvement in the pie incident. That is, his response at the time, the investigation he ordered and the results of his investigation.Momento (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm all for having a complete account of the incident. But we shouldn't duplicate the same material in both this article and the DLM article, if we can avoid it. Or, if folks insist, we can have complete versions in both articles. Or, since the incident was so widely reported, we could spin it off into a separate article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Since Rawat didn't attack Halley, I'm wondering why the attack on Halley is included in the first place. But since it is we're obliged to show that Rawat was not involved and did everything he could to assist the police.Momento (talk) 05:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's part of his biography. I don't think this is "all" of the incident. I don't really care whether the story is here, in the DLM article, or in a spin-off article, though I think we should minimize duplication. I'll check the sources again and see what else should be included. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe the short term media attention could be mentioned: I remember having read that the incident was filmed and aired on television the same or the next day (wasn't the attention given to the incident even nationwide within 24h?). (For comparison, but that's not something that should necessarily be mentioned: the short-term attention for this incident was wider than the short-term attention given to Millenium '73 by the same media if I'm not erring) --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Millennium festival was attended by as many as 300 reporters and was the subject of a video documentary and several long-form articles. But it received little attention by the news agencies and apparently little attention in smaller newspapers. By comparison, the Detroit incident was probably witnessed by only a couple of reporters, yet it was carried by scores of newspapers due to the wire services, and may have been carried by broadcast TV news. The subsequent beating also received widespread attention and became part of the public perception of Rawat. To compare the two, one was covered in depth and had lasting repercussions while the other was reported widely but in a relatively shallow manner. The Detroit incident's lasting importance was mostly in how it changed the public perception of Rawat. According to one reliable source:
 * You'd think that getting hit in the face with a shaving-cream pie during a Detroit airport news conference with the whole world watching would cause a drop in your guru stock. But not Guru Maharaj Ji. He handled himself with aplomb, grinning at the cameras, showing everyone that even a God-incarnate can take a joke. Everyone was getting a kick out of this Pie-in-the-Face-of-God business, especially the pie thrower, Pat Halley. Then one night two Divine Light devotees came to Halley's apartment and beat his skull in with a bludgeon. The police did nothing, but suddenly the whole world soured on Guru Maharaj Ji.
 * Perhaps more than any other single event, it harmed the public perception of the subject. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it was false accusation repeated by the world's press that Rawat was guilty of smuggling money and jewels that set the media against him and therefore the public. From the end of 1972 until the pie incident it was the "latest" news on Rawat and only a tiny fraction reported that the government apologized. Like wise, the pie story seldom tells the true story and none explain that Mata Ji controlled the Indian mahatmas. Two beatups with Rawat as the patsy. No wonder the media were gunning for him at Millennium.Momento (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's your interpretation. But the source provided says differently. I don't recall seeing any source for the assertion that Mata Ji controlled the mahatmas. I have seen sources saying that they were like Rawat's priests or apostles. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You know the story. Do I have to spell it out for you?Momento (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Mafia? Are you suggesting that the Godmother put out a hit on Halley? (Let's try to stick closer to the the topic - what was it again? Oh yes, the pie throwing in Detroit.) ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If Fakiranand took orders from anyone, it would be Mata Ji. What is the source for this "He handled himself with aplomb, grinning at the cameras, showing everyone that even a God-incarnate can take a joke". It should be in the article.Momento (talk) 00:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting that, Will. Who wrote it? Anyway, it's an elegantly worded portrait of the Maharaji I knew and still know. Regarding the "two Divine Light devotees," in early '74 I happened to be an ashram supervisor in Australia when a letter came around from one of them (Fakiranand.) It was a rambling diatribe against Maharaji who he said was no longer the Satguru as he had not supported the "Blissful Beggar" who acted in his defense in the true traditions of the Mahabharata. He asked for money, I think, so he could continue spreading the Knowledge of God without Maharaji. I know it is common for religious groups to accuse the disaffected of mental disturbance, and I hope I would never do that, but that letter came across as the ramblings of someone unhinged. (I know, irrelevant personal research.) Rumiton (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It was written by Dennis Bartel. As for Fakiranand, his name popped up in some search I did recently. He'd written a glowing account of his new Perfect Master, Satpal Rawat. I don't know whether he's disaffected or if he just changed his affections. It could be argued that he kept the faith with Shri Hans while the U.S./Australian DLM became disaffected with the traditional teachings. As for who is mentally disturbed, it's really better if we don't get into that here. Some of us may qualify for the label! ;) ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think anyone arguing he kept faith with Shri Hans and "the traditional teachings" would have to show that they encouraged deadly attacks on innocent people. I don't believe that is the case. Rumiton (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the situation after the rift and after the letter you mentioned. We're getting off topic. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the same as the DLM version except I left out "outstanding charges" and "shipped of the Europe" as they are irrelevant to Rawat.Momento (talk) 05:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are the actions of the Detroit and Chicago police departments relevant to Rawat? I still think we should have a complete version in at least one location, and avoid duplicaiton. Maybe a spinoff is the way to go, then we can just point to it from this and the DLM articles. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Because they were informed of the suspects whereabouts as a result of Rawat's actions. And their action/inaction is the conclusion of the incident.Momento (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. Apart from a lingering discomfort over the phrase attributed by some which strikes me as quintessential weaselism, I can live with the present wording. Whether it belongs here or in some other article I will leave to others. BTW I changed incident to attack, as that is what it was, and a cowardly and malicious one at that. The apparent lack of action by the Detroit Police is deplorable, as I think it would have resulted in a clearer picture of this occurrence, which has clouded Prem Rawat's story. I can excuse them to some extent. A couple of years before this, I was in Detroit on business for three days. My employer's agent had to hire two police to help me get from my quarters to the meeting rooms. They were needed. The city seemed close to a racial civil war. The cops were good guys, but they had to prioritise. End of irrelevant anecdote. Rumiton (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"Following", "students" and "former followers" sections
These sections belong in DLM or teachings. This article should be about Rawat primarily with general comments about his followers to provide context.Momento (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's complicated. Rawat is notable because of his following, so we need coverage of the extent of that following. Also, the views of followers are a significant POV that need to be included. Finally, after the end of the DLM it's less clear how to describe or quantify the following, making a move more difficult. The EV and TPRF don't have members, if I understand then correctly, though PWK are issued identity cards. So I agree that the bulk of the material on followers belongs in other articles, I don't think we should simply delete the material from this article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * People are only "issued identity cards" if they are needed for attending a particular public event. Rumiton (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Coverage of the extent of that following" is needed and paraphrases of the majority views of followers need to be included but only as part of the Rawat story, not as separate sections. After the end of the DLM Rawat still had followers and even if EV and TPRF don't have members Rawat still has followers/students.Momento (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * They're in separate section because they are not part of the chronological order of events. I didn't mean that there weren't followers/students after the DLM, just that they are harder to quantify. The later movement is covered by fewer secondary sources, and self-published source claiming a large number of students are self-serving and should be avoided. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you specify which material you're thinking of moving and to where? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would integrate "following" numbers within the existing text. All of "students" belongs in "Teaching" and/or "DLM" with addition from Galanter, Downton and others. "Former followers" is not a neutral heading.Momento (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While it may seem to make sense to integrate the numbers of followers into the chronological text, that has problems of its own. We'd have a lot of distracting figures in the midst of narrative that wouldn't improve the readability of the article. The "students" section is just a summary of Schnabel's comments on how Rawat was seen by his students - it should probably be merged with the "Charisma and leadership" section. The views of former followers are a significant POV about Rawat, which doesn't cover their views of his teaching or the DLM, so that material shouldn't be deleted from this article. The part about Collier's deconversion could probably go as it has nothing to do with the subject, but it should be replaced with what she actually said about Rawat. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not thinking of too many figures, for instance this "Estimates of the number of Rawat's adherents varied, and became less certain over time.[123] Petersen states that Rawat claimed 7 million disciples worldwide in 1973, with 60,000 in the U.S.[124] Rudin & Rudin give a worldwide following of 6 million prior to the family schism of 1974, of which 50,000 were in the U.S." would become in the "Coming of Age " section "In 1974 scholars estimated 6 million plus followers worldwide with about 50,000 in the U.S. "

This "According to these authors, these figures had fallen to 1.2 million for Prem Rawat's personal worldwide following in 1980, of which just 15,000 were in the U.S.[125] Palmer and Keller published a general DLM membership of approximately 1.2 million worldwide, with 50,000 in the U.S., in 1990 and 1997.[126]" would become in the "Westernization" section "By 1980 Rawat's personal worldwide following was estimated to be 1.2 million, of which 15,000 were in the U.S.".

The rest of the stuff is too insubstantial to warrant inclusion in this article. The "Students" section need a lot of material from Downton, Galanter and co. And the "former students" section is not neutral and should be incorporated into the "Students" section which should go to "Teachings".Momento (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's some merit to that approach, thogh we need to be careful that the sources actually describe them as followers/students of Rawat, it just members of the DLM/EV. We can't picking the highest numbers. Also, those number were all disputed by the DLM spokesman Anctil who said they were inflated. (We need to add that information regardless of what else we do). The viewpoints on Rawat need to be included in this article, while viewpoints on the teachings and DLM can go into those articles. All significant viewpoints should be included, whether from current students, past students, scholars, or the popular press. Barbour has more relevant material on Collier's views of Rawat, and that material should be re-written. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This edit, appears to add material about students that has nothing to do with Rawat directly. Why was it added here? It appears more relevant to the DLM article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the whole section doesn't belong in the article but since it's here, let's know what scholars think of them.Momento (talk) 06:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand the point of the section - it's to cover the views that students have of Rawat. That material would be relevant to this article. What you added is not.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What an extraordinary section it is then. Whoever created it could only find Schnabel's opinion of how students view Rawat? I think we should remove it otherwise it will take me a week of solid writing to include all the views students have of Rawat.Momento (talk) 06:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said before, it's not complete. The views of students that appear in reliable sources should be added. But the material you added is not about Rawat, nor does it appear in biographies of him. I'm going to move the new Galanter material over to the DLM article, where there is already much of the same material. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed this material because it isn't biographical information. The beliefs and experiences of DLM members are covered in the DLM article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Downton wrote that "instead of considering Rawat's motives and authenticity, perhaps it would be more constructive to ask whether his followers have benefited from their relationship to him and what impact his efforts are having on our society Downton, who studied 15 premies for a period of five years, concluded that the students had changed in a positive way, "their involvement has given their lives a definite direction and purpose", "they seem more peaceful, loving, confident and appreciative of life". He quotes one of his subjects who sums it up best "I am still basically the same person, but now I am more positive, confident, understanding of others, stronger as a person, and happpier " 


 * Since someone has made a big deal of "gifts to Rawat", giving 20 lines about being a millionaire, his house, his cars and other criticisms; it is hardly excessive to give 10 lines to explain why the devotees do it. And Downto's view, as the author of the most comprehensive study on premies at this time, is valuable and necessary to balance the ignorance of the press which dominates this issue.Momento (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see above. The material says nothing about why followers gave gifts to Rawat. It just talks about their general beliefs and state of mind. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have thought you'd be happy to provide readers with more info about Rawat. We have Mishler's opinion and the opinion of obscure newspapers about what Rawat was up to (usually negative), how can you exclude the conclusion of the most extensive study of premies, Rawat and their relationship of the time. It has to go someone and chronologically it belongs between 75 -79. If we follow your argument we should definitely reduce the smuggling story to "Rawat was accused in thye media and the Indian gov apologized", since the rest has nothing to do with him.Momento (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't about Rawat, it's about his followers, specifically about followers who belonged to the DLM. We have a whole article on the DLM, including a section on followers/members.That is where this belongs. This material has nothing to do with gifts. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The smuggling incident and the Halley beating aren't about Rawat either in that case. They are about what his followers did, in one case against Rawat's specific instructions. Are we going to remove them or only the positive material about his followers?Momento (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Every source that talks about the customs and pie incidents refers to them in the context of Rawat. We should remove anything about the followers, positive or negative, that isn't about Rawat, or that doesn't fit better in another article. The topic of follower's beliefs and states of mind are covered in the DLM article. Unless you propose we create one huge mega-article with everything about DLM/EV/TPRF, plus teachings, etc, then we should place material in the most appropriate places and avoid duplicating material unnecessarily. The appropriate place for that Downton material is the DLM article. I'll go place it there, if isn't already in the article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And every source that talks about gifts refers to them in the context of Rawat. In order to avoid POV editing and bias, we can't only let critics be represented and not use pro material. There are no gifts without the givers and they must be heard, particularly when an independent scholarly study gives such a clear description. And let's not confuse religious beliefs with what people believe. If that's the case, you can start removing every bit weird thinking from the Millennium article i.e. space ships, astrology etc.Momento (talk) 08:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But the Downton text you want to add doesn't deal with gifts. It deals with how the followers happy the followers were. If the idea is to explain why the followers gave gifts by juxtaposing it with how happy they were then that would be synthesis. WP:SYNTH. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's all one explanation. Downton is saying, quite correctly, that people get caught up with the gifts without accepting that Rawat has already given these people something that they greatly value. In order to understand the gift, you have to understand the relationship. The media didn't get it, Downton does. Since this is an encyclopedia we should inform the reader not just follow the media line.Momento (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying we shouldn't include this material in the encyclopedia. I'm saying that it doesn't bleong in this part of the article, or in this article. It belongs in the DLM article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The explanation of gifts and givers must go with the criticism of gifts. It has nothing to do with DLM.Momento (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But it's not Downton's explanation of why gifts were given. It's his explanation of how the followers (all DLM members) felt. You are the one who is presenting this information as part of an explanation for giving gifts, which violates WP:OR. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

1,000 years

 * First of all, it isn't a teaching. secondly, the existing sentence says "Press releases announced that the event would mark the beginning of one thousand years of peace for people who want peace. The sentence I've added says - According to Price, followers believe that "meditation on knowledge brings peace of mind to each individual who receives knowledge and this is ultimately the way to achieve world peace. If all people, particularly statesmen and politicians, had knowledge, wars could no longer be fought". These are directly related and are said about the same subject, therefore they should be together.Momento (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The topic of that section is the Millennium '73 festival. Price wasn't talking about that festival, was she? She was talking about the general beliefs. If it's about what followers believed then it probably belongs in the DLM article.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, many recent edits seem to be rather long quotes. The article will grow much longer quickly if we keep adding these quotes. Let's try to keep the quotations short and summarize instead. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

POV concern: underrepresentation of ex-premies in reception section
Who wants to help to get the article more neutral on this point? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What do or did former followers think about Rawat?
 * 1) I'm sure there are reliable sources that give some insight in what former followers think/thought about Rawat: the current article (and in particular the "Reception" section) gives virtually no clues about the topic.
 * 2) Afaik the reception by former followers is an excellent "reception" topic.


 * The most notable former member whose views are in a reliable source is Sophia Collier. Jacobs' Divine Disenchantment (1989) has material on former members. I think that a few more recent news stories may have quoted some former members too. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What's Collier's appreciation of Rawat? Thus far the Barbour based quote, indirectly referring to Collier, is rather about reception of DLM by Collier. I can't recall having seen material by Collier that summarized how she saw Rawat (the person) after her deconversion (or before)?
 * There's the post-DLM Mishler (and Hand, and other former DLM officials) too of course, but that material has been moved to the "Coming of age" section, or left out altogether (e.g. Garson, mentioned in TIME ): some of it could also or better be summarized in the "reception" (sub-)section(s) imho.
 * Jacobs is new for me, can't recall ever having seen or heard about this source: does he offer some general conclusion regarding views by former adherents of Rawat, about their appreciation of him?
 * More recent news stories: as far as I can recall this category of sources is rather tabloidy when it comes to former followers, although there are as well from US, UK as Australia: is there something useable for the "reception" section there? --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It'd be hard to summarize Janet Jacobs' points. She mostly deals with a case study of two individuals. Let me see if I an scan the relevant pages and send them to you. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Continuing bias
Of 1221 words in the "Coming of Age" section, 550+ are to do with money. Incredibly Rolls Royces get two mentions in separate paragraphs. How absurd is that?Momento (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We've been over this before. The subject's lifestyle was discussed in dozens of sources, both popular and scholarly. We give it no more weight than it deserves. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In case you've forgotten, excerpts from 65 sources that discuss the subject's lifestyle are here: Talk:Prem Rawat/Lifestyle. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, 65 sources all talking about the one Rolls Royce. That doesn't mean we have to repeat every repetition. That the difference between an encyclopedia and the media. We are here to inform, the media is here to sell newspapers.Momento (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Scholars talk about it too. We don't repeat every source. Asserting that something which is discussed in so many sources shouldn't be included in the article is unhelpful. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that we shouldn't say that scholars and the media have commented on Rawat's lifestyle, of course we must. But a third of the material in this section? That's not the proportion devoted to money in any scholastic studies of Rawat. It's tabloid thinking. Money, houses, cars, physical appearance and even a little titillation about his wife. We certainly have sources saying the media was hostile. And many of the sources are satirical, cynical and clearly biased. Just because dozens of newspapers and magazines have jumped on the band wagon to ridicule Rawat doesn't mean and encyclopedia should follow. We shouldn't.Momento (talk) 07:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's our job to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. If you add up all of the articles we have related to Prem Rawat, only a tiny portion is devoted to this topic. This article, the teachings article, the Millennium article, and the articles on the DLM and EV total over 24,000 words. 550? That's less than just 2.2% Claiming undue weight is just plain ridiculous. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That over a third of the material in the Coming of Age section covering Rawat from Millennium to 1980 is devoted to cars and houses is a joke. A responsible editor should recognize a tabloid beat up when they see it and treat it accordingly. It's embarrassing that an encyclopedia focuses on such trivia. As the premie says ""what do you expect him to do, travel from LA. to Houston on a donkey?" We can excuse the U.S. media for their ignorance in the 70s but this is 2008.Momento (talk)

09:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is pathetic Momento that you would exclude reality because it doesn't fit into your view of the man. It is not just a tabloid beat up because that would imply they were lying or that they were bending the truth. The fact is that he does own those cars, he does steal money from the funds and he does spend it for himself. That is not a lie it is the truth and it deserves to be covered. That is what an encyclopedia is for: to tell the truth not to give lies from followers just as much room as truth.
 * The percentage that it takes up in a particular section is determined by how we divide the article. We can make it a section on its own and then it would take up 100% - without any change in the text. If you think we're devoting too much space to a topic that is covered by 65 sources, then maybe we should first address those topics that are covered by fewer sources. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Repetition
Doe we really need the same quote by Hunt twice? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not? There has been no objection to having Hunt's "opulent existence" twice.Momento (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't quote Hunt in the intro, we simply cite him. There's a difference. The article is long enough without duplications. I'm going to remove it from the intro, whee we shouldn't have full quotes anyway, just summaries. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact the same material was still a third time in the article, in the "Following" section, so I removed it from the "Westernisation" section, since it's not really clear to what period in the biography it uniquely applies (if any specific period: 2000s, that's when Hunt wrote it). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Unclear sentence
"Scholars refer to activist in the anti-cult movement as not making distinctions between Guru Maharaji and others."Can someone explain what this means or upgrade the language so that it becomes clear? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment
Why is an employee of the subject in question who works for his public relations section in some capacity (he made the guys first website) the biggest contributor to this article? It seems like an absurd conflict of interest, redoubled by the lack of anything resembling a critique on the article page.

Doesn't anyone else thing is quite bizarre?Cthulhu Dreams (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not unless every editor submits a sworn statement that they do not have any religious or spiritual beliefs and is not atheist or agnostic.Momento (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place to discuss individual editors. But the matter above seems to concern the issue of employment rather than faith. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If accurate, and I hope it is not, the issue of COI is paramount and might have to be addressed sooner than later. WP appears to strongly disapprove of an employee of someone editing the article on that person. Collect (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This issue has been addressed ad nauseum for the past several years. Check the archives. As a result, I suspect Jossi might be the last person ever to self-declare a conflict of interest on Wikipedia. Rumiton (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Press
Why the material about how PR was termed in the press is being reverted? The manners in which the press referred to PR can and should be placed on the Reception > Media section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "reception topics with a limited time fork can usually go in the biographical account" :
 * "cult leader" has a time fork of 25 years — earliest reference used in the article: Larson 1982; latest: Mendick 2007.
 * "playful and pontifical" has a single reference, pre-"Millenium '73", so can easily go in the "Leaving India" section of the biography (that is, unless someone can indicate other occurences of the same characterisation belonging to other time periods of the subject's biography - as far as I'm acquainted with the sources there is none)
 * "messenger of peace" has a single reference, 2000s, so can easily go in that section of the biography (that is, unless someone can indicate other occurences of the same characterisation belonging to other time periods of the subject's biography - as far as I'm acquainted with the sources this characterisation indeed only turned up in the 2000s, as far as third-party sources are concerned).
 * So, please provide more sources, if available, if these last two are to be used as general "reception" topics, otherwise I'm afraid these characterisations fall short of the undue weight policy as far as the reception section is concerned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That arguments seems quite random, and I disagree with the segregation. If we have a media section, the way that PR was termed in the media (not in Larson's who has a very specific bias and is not the media) can and should be compiled into one sentence and placed in Reception > Media were it belongs. 22:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree - we should include as much material in the chronology as possible. We don't segregate material from other sources, such as official DLM sources or scholars, but we include those in the biography as they best fit. The sections at the end are for general assessments that don't fit into the chronology. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So, you disagree that for "some" press references to PR is OK to segregate to the chronology, but for or other press is better to have in the Reception section? What is the rationale for that distinction, and what goes where? It seems to me that this is either disingenuous at worst, or random at best. Care to explain?≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In cases where we can place things into chronological order that's the best approach, and helps keep us from falling into the "crticism section" problem. Views of the subject, whether positive, negative, or neutral, should be spread across the article a appropriate and not segregated at the end. If we have a source, no matter whether from a scholar, a journalist, or whoever, on an event then that should be included in chronological order. If we have sources that makes broad generalities that can't be pegged to any particular time then those are suited to catchall sections at the end. So it's a simple principle - keep as much material in chronological order as practical.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But that does not work for a neutral presentation of the press section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The press section seems like it should be mostly devoted to a discussion of how the press covered the subject, rather than individual reports by the press. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have consolidated these again in the press section, as there is no valid reason provided for segregating some and not doing so on others. I have also removed material that was unrelated to the press. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Reasons were given above: read. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleting sourced material simply because it's in the wrong section isn't a good way to write an encyclopedia. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And this is useful? Or just an seemingly clever way to assert WP:UNDUE? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If it was deleted for being in the wrong section then a "right" section needs to be found. I'd have thought just placing it in "Reception" would have worked. Why did you delete it instead of moving it? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The first Larson's Book of Cults was published in 1982. Larson's New Book of Cults, a revised and updated version, appeared in 1989. The latest and updated edition (2004) is "Larson's Book of World Religions and Alternative Spirituality". I cannot find any mention of "cult leader" in any of these editions. Please provide page number, or delete the cite. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Page 208 of the 1982 edition. However I'm not sure we're phrasing this material the best way. While a number of sources use the exact phrase, "cult leader", far more use the words separately but with the same meaning. I think it'd be better to develop this into a short paragraph in the reception section, one that covers the perception of Rawat's organizations as cults and, if necessary, his role in those organiations. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see it in page 282. What edition do you have? Can you provide the text? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Page 208 of the 1982 edition. (Not page 282 of the 1908 edition!) Larson writes:
 * But before any final obituaries on Guru Maharaj Ji are pronounced, it would be wise to ponder the teachings and practices that precipitated his sudden rise to power. In the seeds of his fame may be the genesis of other cult leaders having an Eastern inclination, Understanding what the DLM taught and represented may give a clue forewarning society of other personality cult figures.
 * (Always glad to help provide verification for challenged citations.) ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It does not assert that "he was termed" as such, and in any case, he does not include this statement in the latter, actualized editions. I say we need to lose it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Actualized"? What does that mean? Anyway, the phrase "other cult leaders " clearly refers back to Guru Maharaj Ji. Note further that the material is contained in a chapter titled "Major cults". Are you disputing that Larson describes the DLM as a cult, or Rawat as its leader? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, I found this on page 205 of the same edition:
 * ''In the early seventies Guru Maharaj Ji commanded one of the largest and fastest-growing followings of all imported cult leaders.
 * That seems pretty direct. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal
This is what I had (see Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 38): It was rejected on grounds of OR. Can anyone do better? Please proceed! --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Why did you delete the material I added? Please restore. It is highly pertinent and relevant ands gives the necessary context. Also, you do not address the WP:UNDUE concern that I raised. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You didn't explain the undue weight issue. How much weight do you think this topic is due, and why? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at the article as it stands now and tell me if adding a section for one sentence is not WP:UNDUE. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As you can see, Francis is proposing expanding it with the text presented here. You've drafted a long sentence to add as well. If the section contained a full paragraph or two would that address your concern? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No. It will not. Placing a couple of sentences as per my edit here (which was reverted by Francis), in the Reception intro section will. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me ask again: how much weight do you think this material is due, and why? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me ask again: Do you believe that a section as short as this one, or even a couple of more sentences, as added to the TOC is not WP:UNDUE? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters much whether this material is in a section of its own or in another section. Francis created the section because you deleted the material on account if it being in the "wrong" section. Now can you answer my question?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. See Cult leader. That explains it, in the best possible manner. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're speaking in riddles. We have several reliable sources that refer to the subject as a "cult leader", and several dozen sources that refer to him as the head of a cult. Is it your contention that any mention of this material is undue weight? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that neither you or I can respond to that question. I have asked Jayen to weigh in, as he may be in a better position to come up with a proposal that we can live with. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can say something has undue weight that implies you have some idea of what due weight is. When challenged, you've declined to answer. Just adding links to Wikipedia policies and saying there's a violation isn't useful if you can't say what the violation is. If you want your concern to be addressed you need to explain it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course I can say what the WP:UNDUE is in this case. And in fact, I have said it now, and in previous discussions on this specific subject. I am pragmatic, and know that it would be impossible for you and I to agree on this, so that is why I have asked Jayen to weigh in who in the past has managed to provide good ideas to bridge the gap between our almost always opposing views. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

<- Claiming something is wrong without giving any evidence is just an empty complaint. Let's talk about how much weight is due to the numerous reports that the subject was the head a cult. Clearly, his (spiritual) leadership of the DLM and EV was inextricably linked to his prominence as an individual. Virtually no sources discusses him without mentioning them, and vice versa. And I don't think anyone would dispute that the DLM in particular, but also the EV, was termed a "cult" in many sources. "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. " The view that Rawat as the head of a cult is a very prominent viewpoint. NPOV requires that we give it proportionate space in the article. We mention accolades that appear in only single sources. Views that appear in dozens of sources require significantly more weight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say a brief reference in the media section mentioning the use of the label is enough, and I wouldn't even insist on that. Why? Because it's just a derogatory term, much like slut and nigger. To address the weight argument, google news alone e.g. lists almost 1500 news articles referring to Michael Jackson as "Wacko Jacko". Yet our FA on the man mentions the term once. We don't have a subsection named "Wacko Jacko", although I'm sure there are people who'd like to create one. :-) Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There is no indication that the sources which used the term used it as a derogatory epithet to make fun of the subject. Rather, it was used as a descriptive term. A better comparison would be how many sources refer to Jackson as a "child molester", which may be negative but is also descriptive. Closer to the "Wacko Jacko" label would be things like "Boy Guru" and similar labels which were commonly used but aren't mentioned in this article (though for some reason Momento wanted to add them). Getting back to the material in this article, it appears that this is a major viewpoint, supported by numerous sources. Regarding how we should treat it in this article, it appears that the section "Charismatic leadership" appears to be used as an alternative or euphemistic term for "cult leader". Perhaps that material can be merged with the material that Francis has drafted to make a section which covers this issue fully. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I will not oppose adding a few sentences to the Charismatic leadership section. Just note that Francis piece is too close for comfort to WP:OR, so a trimming of that + the sentence I added, may work. Jayen: would you try to do it? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the topic is contentious, it'd be best to post a draft here so we can all review it before placing it in the article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please incorporate the material into your proposal, as a starter. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked up this reference, and it quotes Ted Patrick's book, Let Our Children Go!. We don't quote Patrick, so I'm not sure of the relevance. It appears to be a general attack on the anti-cult movement, rather than a response to the specific issues proposed for this article. Would it be appropriate to include comments on cults in general? I don't think so, and I don't this that the general view of the anti-cult movement is appropriate either. I think that at a minimum the last clause should either be omitted, or context given, by quoting Patrick directly. Let's try to stick to addressing the topic of this article.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you read the entire paragraph in the source? It is an good paragraph, cited to several authors and provides the necessary context about the "terming" and refers directly to PR. I can argue, that Larson's is not as relevant as this one.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would argue further, that if you call Richardson's an attack on the anti-cult movement, we can easily call Larson's to be an attack on PR or others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Informally, I agree that Larson is unsympathetic to non-Christian religious movements. But we can't say he "attacks" PR unless we have a source for that. We have plenty of sources that speak generally about cults and mention DLM/EV and PR/GMJ. If we're going to include a general assessment of the anti-cult movement it may make sense to include general comments about cults. However I don't think that is a good road to go down. We already have articles on those topics. This article should remain focused on the topic. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This article should remain focused on the topic -- sure, but if you want to add material from Larson, as well as sensationalist papers, then it is OK to add some context. Let's wait to see if Jayen can bridge the gap with some of his brilliant prose. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also note that the way most scholars refer to "cult" is not the same as the anti-cult or the popular media. And surely we will not go into making that point either, so we need to be cautious on how we cover this, otherwise the non-scientific, popular use will have prevalence and that will not be OK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Larson and about two dozen other sources. I dont' see how a discussion of Patrick helps provide context for Larson, or why we need to get into discussing people who have their own articles already. For Larson, simply identifying him as an evangelist or something similar would be sufficient. We have to be careful that "context" isn't "poisoning the well" with issues that aren't directly relevant. As for your last point, popular views of the subject are relevant, too. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The source and the sentence is very good, and provides the necessary context and balance for the characterizations on the other sources. As I said, let's give Jayen a chance and see if he can help out with this. Good night. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to Francis' draft, and Jayen's writing ability, I don't think we're quite ready to draft text yet. Let's start by assembling our sources. Once we have those it should be reasonably easy to summarize what they say. I've started a page a Talk:Prem Rawat/cult leader where we can copy in the citations that seem appropriate. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to Francis' draft, and Jayen's writing ability, I don't think we're quite ready to draft text yet. Let's start by assembling our sources. Once we have those it should be reasonably easy to summarize what they say. I've started a page a Talk:Prem Rawat/cult leader where we can copy in the citations that seem appropriate. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just want to weigh in here about the use of the word "cult." It's absolutely not the same as using "slut" and "nigger." That's a bizarre notion to promote here. I could provide scholars that do use the term and they might not be sociologists or "scholars of new religious movements" working in academic religion depts., but indeed they are still scholars. Adherents might want to label those scholars as "anti-cult movement," but that's also a pejorative label frequently espoused by adherents of NRMs, and the CESNUR scholars who support them. That subject is controversial in its own right. Plus, the use of a particular English term is not the subject of this article. If a source uses the word "cult," then it should be used in the article. It's a word in the English lexicon and is still used. It's only a perjorative from an adherent's point of view.

Btw, if using "cult" were tantamount to "slut" and "nigger," then news media would never use it and they frequently do use it. Btw, the media never use the word "nigger," to describe a black man, or "slut" to describe a prostitute, for example, but they do use "cult" to describe an NRM. I find it disturbing that Wikipedia tries to elminate the use of that term. I thought this was an encyclopedia, not a cultural movement. It might be helpful to the process of these Rawat articles, if Jossi stepped back considering his COI. I find it incredible that he's still forcing his pov on editors here, thereby blocking the writing process of the Rawat articles. Am I the only person noticing this disruption? The ARBCOM praised him for using restraint, I'm not seeing any such restraint here or in the Millennium '73 article. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the word cult is nearly always used pejoratively. It can in no way be considered descriptive, as suggested above. It describes nothing, just brings to mind a small group of people with anti-social beliefs and practices and probably dress code. The only exception might be particular religious scholars who have their own in-house definition of the word that isn't clear to anyone else. And prior to political correctness, English-language media were using racial and mysogonistic insults freely. They stopped because they were forced to, not because of their elevated social consciences. Wikipedia can and should do better. Rumiton (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Def 6 from RHD: "a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader." It is not labelled as "pejprative" in any dictionary I found. Laying aside, therefore, that objection, the issue is whether this person meets the definition of being a "charismatic leader" and whether the group is "unorthodox" with members living "outside of conventional society."  WP:WTA offers this opinion: " a small religious group with novel religious beliefs and a high degree of tension with the surrounding society: in that case, it must be clear that a neutral sociological usage is intended."  Thus "cult" is not a word which is "pejorative" in esse, but if you are sensitive, all thatis needed is a note that the "sociological meaning" is being used. It is not, furthermore, a "racial and (mysogynistic) insult." Collect (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the words "slut" and ";nigger" with which it was being compared. And if "considered to be false, unorthodox or extremist" is not pejorative, perhaps you will give us an example of what is? Rumiton (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I fear you miss the word "or" in the dictionary definitions. Is this group "unorthodox" by any chance? In which case, the dictionary definition appears apt. Then I pointed out the WP solution which is to use the term as a sociological term meaning " a small religious group with novel religious beliefs and a high degree of tension with the surrounding society." Does the group fit what WP avers is a sociological usage? That is -- is this group a "small religious group"? Does it have "novel religious beliefs"? Does it have "a high degree of tension with the surrounding society"? If so, and it meets the WP usage, and the term is linked to that definition clearly, then it would be properly used in any case. Further, if a source uses the term cult, then such usage, as referenced, is also proper. Collect (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Unorthodox from whose point of view? Are Christians unorthodox by Muslim values, and vice versa? Are Buddhists unorthodox? If they are, what is the point of saying so? They are Buddhists. Your other points -- I would deny that Prem Rawat's following was encouraged to have the kind of beliefs that are generally regarded as "religious." No codes of behaviour, except voluntary ones, no belief in an afterlife (or pre-life), no peculiar clothes, no claims of a special status or being "saved", etc. The belief has only been in the effectiveness of the techniques of inner knowledge. The group certainly does not have a "high degree of tension with the surrounding society." Premies come from all walks of life, and their colleagues most likely do not know they practise the techniques. (Mine never have.) It fails on most counts. If including the word cult tells us something important about Prem Rawat and his movement, let's do so. Personally, I am not convinced yet. Rumiton (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

From the list of references for this article: The word "cult" has been used by numerous scholars in a descriptive manner. WP:WTA deals with how Wikipedia refers to article subjects; it does not censor us from discussing what terms others have used. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Barrett, David V. (2001). The new believers : a survey of sects, cults, and alternative religions. London; New York, NY: Cassell ; Distributed in the United States by Sterling Pub.. ISBN 0304355925 9780304355921 1844030407 9781844030408.
 * Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin (1993). The illustrated encyclopedia of active new religions, sects, and cults. New York: Rosen Pub. Group. ISBN 0823915050 : 9780823915057.
 * Galanter, Marc (1999). Cults: Faith, Healing and Coercion. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195123697 9780195123692 0195123700 9780195123708.
 * Levine, Saul V. in Galanter, Marc (1989). Cults and New Religious Movements: A Report of the American Psychiatric Association. American Psychiatric Pub., Inc. ISBN 0890422125.
 * Lewis, James; NetLibrary, Inc. (1998a). Cults in America a reference handbook. Santa Barbara Calif.: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9780585058436.
 * Lewis, James R. (1998b). The encyclopedia of cults, sects, and new religions. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. ISBN 1573922226 9781573922227.
 * Melton, J. Gordon; Robert L. Moore (1982). The cult experience : responding to the new religious pluralism. New York: Pilgrim Press. ISBN 0829806199 : 9780829806199.
 * Melton, J. Gordon. (1986). The encyclopedic handbook of cults in America, Garland reference library of social science, v. 213. New York: Garland Pub.. ISBN 0824090365 9780824090364.
 * Petersen, William J. (1982-12). Those Curious New Cults in the 80's, Revised, Keats Pub, 307. ISBN 0879833173.
 * And so on. See also: Talk:Prem Rawat/Leader of


 * We have talked about this before. If the word cult is "descriptive", then what is being described? Does it tell us anything about the teachings of Prem Rawat, or about the organisation that existed in the 70s? Or is it just a cheap-shot, a book cover banner, and an appeal to religious and social prejudices? We must be careful that Wikipedia uses the highest and best voices, not the lowest and worst, though of course their existence must be acknowledged. Rumiton (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Working from the WP sociological definition of cult : a small religious group with novel religious beliefs and a high degree of tension with the surrounding society. The group is a "small religous group - no issue.  Does it have "novel religious beliefs"? I would say likely so, especially since it has devolved from traditional Hindu practices, to be sure.  Does it have a "high degree of tension with the surrounding society"? Surely the earlier incarnations did have such tension, and thus referring to the earlier groups as "cults" is pretty clear. Is the current group a "cult"?  I would like to have an open mind until others weigh in on whether there is currently a "high degree of tension." What say everyone? Collect (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * According to most scholars Rawat's teachings are Hindu based. It should therefore be seen like any branch of a major religion (Hindus are 13% of world pop). We don't call individual Christian ministries a "cult". Neither do Rawat's followers have novel religious beliefs, all scholars confirm that practicing "knowledge" is "internal and highly individual, with no associated social structure, liturgy, ethical practices or articles of faith". Finally, according to Stoner and Parke in 1978, "the contemporary recruit is more likely to be a student, musician, artist, lawyer, or teacher-a well-educated man or woman who is, or is destined to become, a solid member of the community". So no tension there.Momento (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My belief is that it's not our job to decide whether Rawat's following is or was a cult, sect, NRM, etc. Our job is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. If sources say that the following is or was a cult, sect, and NRM then that's what this article should say. Sources may even conflict and when they do we should report all sides of the matter, as required by WP:NPOV. As for using only the "highest and best voices", see the list of scholarly volumes that include the subject in discussions of cults.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Our task is to find words which will accurately reflect actions and opinions of Prem Rawat in this biography of a living person. I am fairly certain that the earlier incarnations of his group were, indeed,  "cults" but that the evidence is not as strong for the current incarnation. Most of the references cited deal, in fact, with the earlier "cults."  The other issue at hand appears to be funding -- the Foundation appears to be funded in a fairly simple manner, but I would like to know if any funds are directly given to Prem Rawat as that would influence my opinion as to how the "donation" issue should be treated. Clearly the older "cults" were quite improper in their pushing for donations from the accounts cited, but it is not as clear that the latest incarnation does the same.  What we need is information on this.  Clearly any current cites which are furnished will aid in making this a proper article. Collect (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You feel it was "quite improper in their pushing for donations"? Do you feel Wikipedia is improper for having "donate now" on the top of this page? Or is your criticism just reserved for DLM/EV/TPRF? Momento (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This article covers all periods of the subject's life. The period of his life from 1972 to 1982 received considerable attention from scholars and journalists alike. The last 25 years of his life have received only a faction of that attention, in part because he consciously adopted a lower profile. However that means that there are far fewer sources covering this later period. If you look in the page Talk:Prem Rawat/Leader of you'll find some excerpts from the more recent sources. (In many cases, the original sources can be found online with a search, or editors here can provide you with copies). ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I read it all. The use of "cult" (other than the French usage which counts Mormons as a "cult") for Rawat's organization in the past few years is not as clear-cut as one would hope. The use of "cult" for the older organizations is, in fact, quite clear cut. Collect (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's absolutely clear cut. It has only been used as a pejorative by biased journalists. If you're not "white bread Christians" you're weird and should be made fun of. That's why Wiki prefers scholars.Momento (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Momento, if the assertion is that Rawat's following has been referred to as a cult by only "biased journalists" then that is plainly incorrect. First, we don't know of the individual biases of all the journalists, so to assert that they are making fun of Rawat because he is not a "white bread Christian" is unfounded. Second, scholars have also called the following a "cult". ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Would they be Christian scholars Will?Momento (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, there we go. Journalists aren't acceptable sources because all media are biased. Sources that agree with each other aren't acceptable because they're just repeating each other. Sociologists aren't acceptable sources because they are, well, sociologists. Christian scholars aren't acceptable because they belong to a different religion. Ditto for Sikh scholars. That leaves one acceptable source: Ron Geaves. And the fact that he's a follower of the subject is totally irrelevant. Is that correct? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"Whatever the movement, Rawat is not its leader"
Is this really a contention? Does anyone here assert that Prem Rawat is not the leader of his followers, or at least wasn't in years past? There are many sources that talk about "his" movement, or describe him as its leader or head. This university newspaper correction isn't a sufficient source on its own. If that's all we have then it hardly seem worth mentioning. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"Playful and pontifical"
That long article says many things about Rawat. Why are we mentioning these two adjectives? What's the point? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Late September 1973, Rawat was described as playful and pontifical in the Great Bend Tribune.[62]
 * If there's no reason for these two words beig in the article, I'll delete the sentence. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing no exaplanation, I'll remove it. That said, the Carter article is a good source with many facts about the subject and the DLM. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Religious Followers are not reliable sources
It is absurd that internet articles written by religious followers are being considered as legitimate sources. Do we take historical facts about Jesus from random internet websites written by Christian's or do we take the historians perspective who has been vetted by other academics. It is clear that this man is a cult leader and this is being completely under represented in this article. This article has been clearly hijacked by followers of this mans cult to make him look a little more holy than the man actually is. Jesus does not even receive this kind of bias treatment on wikipedia this cult leader should definitely not either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.117.116 (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has policies and guidelines covering which sources are suitable, WP:V and WP:RS. Internet articles published by the subject's movement are considered self-published sources and are allowable for limited use, in particular for non-controversial statements that aren't unduly self-promotional. I believe that the article complies with the relevant policies in that respect, but the article changes so it needs to be monitored.
 * As for your second point, about the subject being a cult leader, that is a significant point of view and Wikipedia's neutrality policy requires that we include it. The article does say, under "Media response", Rawat has been termed a cult leader in popular press reports, and anti-cult writings. How much weight and prominence we give that assertion depends on a combination of the number and importance of sources that make the assertion, and of the agreement among editors here. If you'd like to participate in that discussion you're welcome to join us. I suggest registering a user name. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Clearly those policies are not being followed when it comes to this article. They are not used in limited use they are used throughout the article to make this well known cult figure and con artist look like a hero. They are completely self promotional because they are members of his cult. Telling members of your own cult to write articles about you and having Wikipedia staff such as Jossi to protect the article is self promotional and wrong.
 * Cult leader is not included in the article and to be neutral it should be included in the start of the article not hidden deep inside so you have to ravage through propaganda to find the truth. It should be laid out clearly in the opening that he is a well known cult leader but some people do follow him. I don't think anyone with a rational mind and an understanding of modern science would believe this man is anything other than a con artist and not a god as he claims and this article attempts to prove. This is giant wank off on this guy the likes of Christianity doesn't even recieve. Why would I want to join your organization when you help breed ignorance and give cult members such high power such as "This administrator, Jossi Fresco, is a longtime student of Prem Rawat - formerly Guru Maharaj Ji - the India-born spiritual leader who styled himself as the "Perfect Master" and fostered a worldwide religious movement encouraging followers to call him "Lord of the Universe."

Jossi Fresco openly acknowledges he's employed by an organization "related" to Prem Rawat, and according to an ex-Rawat-follower and former friend, he served on the guru's personal staff and built the guru's first web site. Nonetheless, Fresco maintains strict control over Wikipedia’s Prem Rawat article and countless related articles, keeping criticism of his guru to a bare minimum." This is a sham of a encyclopedia and I would have no part in it. That is why actual scientist and respected authors are creating their own because this place is falling apart. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/06/the_cult_of_wikipedia/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.117.116 (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Jossi removed some cited content here, along with the citation itself, which appears to be a reliable source. I'll wait for an explanation before I do anything else besides readding it. Cla68 (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Why are unsigned denigratory comments accepted here without removal? Somone who does not dare to stand for what he says does not deserve to have his comments here. Sounds like a certain brand of ex-premies. Like we say in Spanish, "throws the stone and hides the hand". I cannot understand it. If any person really had full control on Prem's biography I would never think he is a follower--Pedrero (talk) 02:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Very few editors sign their real names. Some editors don't have accounts at all and so they just use their IP addresses. While we call those users "anons", they may actually be less anonymous because their IP addresses can often be tracked. The only thing that's forbidden is using multiple accounts to edit the same topic, or using usernames that are offensive or misleading. Otherwise it's pretty much OK to sign your posts as you like. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

References (please keep this section at the bottom of the page)
(That worked out well.) --UnicornTapestry (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Free of charge
If we're going to cite sources saying that the initiation is free of charge then we also need to include the sources that say initiates are expected to pay for having received the Knowledge. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Which sources? The techniques have been always offered free of charge. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We have several sources that say initiates were told they were in Maharaj Ji's debt for the rest of their lives. Here's a variation on the theme:
 * The Knowledge session began about noon with an examination of each of the potential premies. Do you really believe Guru Maharaj Ji is the Lord? Do you really want to serve Him and Him alone? Do you have any other gurus? One young man made the mistake of saying that he wanted to receive Knowledge even though he was still a follower of Jesus. "Then get Jesus to give you Knowledge," retorted the mahatma. Asked why she wanted to receive Knowledge, one girl replied innocently enough that she wanted to find God. She was rejected along with nearly half of the others. After a lunch break we settled into the serious business of making contact with the primordial vibrations of the universe. We were instructed to sit up straight, keep our eyes on the mahatma and answer all his questions in loud, clear voices. The first step was for everyone to take all the money out of his pockets, present it at the foot of the altar and express eternal gratitude and devotion to Guru Maharaj Ji. "If all you have is a check, sign it so that it can be cashed," instructed the mahatma. One boy was found to be holding out enough for his bus fare home. "What if Guru Maharaj Ji doesn't want you to go home?" asked the mahatma. [...] He told us to meditate sever hours a day, covering the head for the divine light pa and told us that the first time we saw Guru Maharaj in person we should turn our right ear to him so that he might "blow you a puff of grace." He gave us greeting to be used in addressing other premies an passed out pieces of paper with his name and address. "Send your worldly possessions here," he said. "Do you love Guru Maharaj Ji, or do you love your money?"
 * That doesn't seem consistent with being free. I'm not saying we shouldn't report the claim that it's free, I'm just saying that if we do we also need to report on the actual reality. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I do not know where that reported got that, but the "actual reality" is that techniques are free of charge and have always been free. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The citation information is there. It's not alone - I've seen at least one other source that says a follower was told after the "free" initiation that he was now in debt to Guru Maharaj Ji. We can report both the claims of it being free and the reports of demands of money. Or we can leave them both out. But it wouldn't be NPOV to include only half of the story. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We're talking about official policy not what one Indian mahatma said. Momento (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine. We might phrase it something like, Officially, there is no charge for receiving Knowledge, but initiates have reported demands for payment. Let me dig up the other source and then we can decide on the exact wording. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not "payment". There has been, and still is, always a demand for money, and money has never been scorned. But Prem Rawat has sysytematically made it clear that money has nothing to do with the initiation and the practice of Knowledge, and the issue of raising money has been very distinctly and sensibly been seperated from the core issue of spreading Knowledge. In the very early Indian mahatma days of DLM the leading staff obviously was not aware of the touchiness of western society concerning monetary issues, but even then it was clear for every interested person that there was no such thing as payment. Rawat has repeatedly publicly stressed that he personally resisted tendencies in DLM to charge money for the initiation, and he made sure that lack of money never was an obstacle for receiving Knowledge. Otherwise propagation could hardly have been successful in Africa, India, South America. And even in the rich countries a person without money has in no way been discriminated or barred from participating at events. This has been policy for several decades now, and is in fact quite remarkable. There has never been a pretense that money is worthless, when everybody knows it is not. But there was cleary never a sense of payment. Hard to understand for tabloid minds.--Rainer P. (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have the advantage of personal experience in this field. I only know what I read. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'm just trying to help with understanding, can't hurt.--Rainer P. (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I should point out that while Rainer's remarks are quite true from my experience, I think he is using the word "demand" in the economic sense, to mean a "need," not the more common sense to mean an insistence on payment. Rumiton (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, Rumiton. The German word in my mind was "Bedarf". I was not aware of the ambiguity of "demand".--Rainer P. (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, Rumiton. The German word in my mind was "Bedarf". I was not aware of the ambiguity of "demand".--Rainer P. (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, what happened in early DLM times, mentioned 30 years later, gives a false impression. What is important is what the general policy has been in the last decades and specially now on the "payment"/donation subject. There may have been some mahatmas in early times that did or said wrong things, at a time when control was rather by Prem's mother, and some mahatmas perhaps brought wrong habits from India. You probably know that Prem has dismissed mahatmas due to wrong behavior, and I am not even sure if some mahatmas were "inherited" from his father's times. Was it easy for a 12 or 13 year old boy to control all that?


 * The master is responsible for policies and guidelines, but is it right to blame the master for each action of each mahatma, initiator or follower? One of the ex-premies of the early organization wanted to charge a fee for receiving Knowledge, which of course Prem rejected. He was later dismissed from the organization and decades later still has a website dedicated mainly to denigrate and ridicule Prem's early times. If Prem complied with his view, no university would accept Prem. Please do not ask me names, I have found this information in internet and you may find it too.


 * Is it not logical to bring a present to a Satguru at initiation? It would be extremely ungrateful that a present is given to friends and family every birthday, and to the person who gives you the most precious gift, not only of this lifetime, but of all your dozens or hundreds of lifetimes, which is the possibility of liberation from the long imprisonment of the soul in the bodily prison and limitations, you would not give anything.


 * You may call it payment or you may call it gift, according to your perception. In my case, in 1974, in London, where I went from the Canary Islands, I was told in Spain to bring a gift, not money, so I gave the gift I had brought, gold-engraved hand-cuffs and a neck-tie clip, which the Mahatma returned to me, they were useless for him or Maharaji (though they could have sold them) as they used oriental clothes, no tie (imagine my ignorance of oriental things at the time, like most western people).


 * The mahatma accepted what we had brought (aprox. 15 people for iniciation in the room), some brought gifts, some money and some nothing, and did not check who brought something and who did not, nobody was refused initiation for that (or any other reason in my case), nor have I ever heard of anyone not initiated for lack of gifts or money, nor refused to attend an event for the same reason. I have been attending events for years without doing any regular donation or contribution at all, (apart from the entrance fee to pay the event expenses), nobody ever asked me at the door if I was contributing with anything or not.


 * Is it right to bring negative anecdotes from 30 years ago as part of Prem's biography? That is not the story of Prem's life, which does not include all his followers experiences, nor a description of his message, which is the most important thing, but is almost buried under the negative opinions of "experts" (in many different fields that have little to do with yoga, which is the origin of Prem's teachings) and negative anecdotes. Sorry to say, Prem's biography is a disaster.--Pedrero (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How much are the entrance fees? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My highlights . ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)




 * Perhaps it would be better to say something like, "contributions are requested but not required." ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Any other thoughts? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No other thought than that Knowledge has always been free of charge.Momento (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So Knowledge is free, but there's a fee for attending the meeting where Knowledge is given? (Waived for those who show financial need?) ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Might I try figuring this all out? The lessons are free, though it is expected that donations will be made. Now, are the donations like the Mormon Church, where some set percentage is expected? Like the Protestant tradition of a "weekly offering"? Like the (all too common) Jewish practice of an annual fee for the High Holidays? The televangelist model of "send us all you can spare"? Which model comes closest to the Prem Rawat model? Thanks! Collect (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Everything has always been free - attending the meetings and learning the techniques. In the 70s "Indian" days people often brought gifts like fruit, flowers or something symbolic to the Knowledge session but they were never mandatory or necessary. Some Indian mahatmas may have asked for donations in the early 70s but they were wrong to do so. As Rawat made clear in his first talks in the west "This Knowledge is for you...it has been made absolutely free for you" Westminster Hall 1971. These days receiving Knowledge involves watching the Keys videos. The Keys website says "There is no charge for the Keys videos or for the Knowledge session. The Keys are available on a loan basis. Shipping and handling charges and a deposit may apply. The costs of producing the Keys are met by the voluntary contributions of people who appreciate Maharaji's message. Knowledge is a gift from Maharaji and is offered free of charge".Momento (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Might I get a more realistic answer? Running the organization costs money. What is the mode of raising money? Does it meet any model above? If not, what is the fundraising model? What are the levels of "voluntary contributions" for example? Are they given weekly? Annually? Randomly? And further lessons beyond the Keys? Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Here you go: There is no tithe or other similar types of requests; people donate as they do to any other non-profit organizations. You may read http://tprf.org/tprf/annual_report.htm which may clarify this for you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Here you go again: there is no financial statement from Elan Vital anywhere that I can find. The Prem Rawat Foundation financial statement only contains relatively small numbers, not really commensurate with costs of running a jet airplane. Can you post a link to the Elan Vital annual report and, if that too isn't very impressive, the annual report of another Prem Rawat organisation that does contain numbers that make sense? Surely there must be some way to explain how Prem Rawat can be confident that his travel expenses will be met, particularly if, as people here claim that he claims, he never asks people to give him or the organisations whose executive he appoints any money. Matt Stan (talk) 12:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Am I correct that the average donation for the Foundation is about $750 per annum from the 2,000 donors? Is money donated to other entities as well, or is the Foundation the primary recipient of gifts? Collect (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been paying/donating nothing for years, since 2000, I pay 25 euros/month. You give as much as you want whenever you want, you may stop whenever you want and restart whenever you want. From which source is the figure of $750?--Pedrero (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So there's no entrance fee to any of Rawat's talk? No charge to attend festivals? That's not what our sources say. One, I'd have to go check, says that the number of festivals were increased in order to raise more money, and that followers were pressured to attend.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:·
 * If the question is "does Rawat charge for Knowledge or speaking engagements?" then Rawat is the obvious one to answer that question and he says he doesn't. I'm sure you can find a source that says he charges but as we know even the most reliable sources can get it wrong and some of the sources we've used get it wrong often.Momento (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In the 1970s DLM encouraged premies to tithe their incomes and many premies did indeed tithe their incomes in the U.S. The ashrams, of course, tithed its combined income to  Prem Rawat and gave another 10% on top of that to DLM.  It's ridiculous to say "everything is free of charge."  Donations are requested constantly and Elan Vital and TPRF goe out of their way to ask for donations all of the time, including how a premie can make EV or Prem Rawat, the beneficiary of a premie's life insurance policies and their estates upon their deaths.  The Gulfstream V jet Rawat uses exclusively isn't paid for by Prem Rawat, so someone is paying for it.  And he didn't get wealthy by working.  The carrot on the stick in this NRM is that "everything is free."  And, of course, no one has to pay to enter a Knowledge Session to get the meditation techniques nor do they pay to watch the 70+ hours of dvds (except for postage and handling) that's required for a newcomer to "prepare" themselves to be considered able to enter that Knowledge Session.  Nor do newcomers pay for the facilities that they go to when they "receive" the Knowledge techniques, but somebody is paying for all of those things:  those facilities, dvd production, the cost of live programs around the world, Rawat's travel expenses, including the the jet fuel and upkeep and maintenance of the jet, which runs around $300K to $400K per month, etc., etc.  Now, whether there are sources that state all of the above is another question, but for anyone to say that  no one has to pay anything, is absurd.   Gimme a break, "free of charge."  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have any cite for such a jet having such high maintenance charges? Jossi pointed me to the Foundation financial report, but any further cited info would help a lot! Collect (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The plane costs lots, hundreds of thousands of miles per year, and therefore are donations necessary. Since people in poor countrys cannot pay, then people in rich countries pay the travel expenses to poor countries. Prem travelled in regular flights and planes for years, until it was impossible to keep a schedule of over 100 events per year, because there were not enough connections and sometimes there was no plane, so he had to fly from Africa to London to take another plane to another African country. That is why he needs "his" "own" plane which he uses almost exclusively to come and see us so we do not need to go to the US or Europe, as most third world premies cannot afford it. But if anyone likes to think that Prem does all this only for money, why don't you then go and follow someone like Sri Yukteswar and Yogananda? There must be many gurus in India with no wealth, living in the jungle or in the Himalayas with a few followers. They are also critized for not going out to the world, or to the west, and help a world in growing pyschological collapse, and now also in material collapse (perhaps as a consequence). Who is not criticized? If you want to beat someone you will always find a stick.


 * Some people are just addicted to critic and negative thoughts like others to anything else. A Spanish saying says "piensa el ladrón que todos son de su condición", a thief thinks everyone is like him. All the intellectuals, including ministers, who go to his speeches in famous universities are not stupid. Nor his followers, who in the seventies were considered the crazy followers of a crazy guru by the "mainstream media", so avid for truth as we have seen recently in the US. Someone is mentioning an article by Time magazine. Would you consider that Time is independent media? May be it is for most Americans but not for most Europeans. Now those arguments of the seventies are lost in time, even if you can still read them in ex-premies websites, obsessed with the seventies, as their mind stopped there and does not want to know that we are in 2008, just like Prem's biography, that some want to make another ex-premies website.--Pedrero (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Any comments in this section are addressing the issue brought up in the opening comment which was "If we're going to cite sources saying that the initiation is free of charge then we also need to include the sources that say initiates are expected to pay for having received the Knowledge. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC) And as you, SylvieCyn confirm "of course, no one has to pay to enter a Knowledge Session to get the meditation techniques nor do they pay to watch the 70+ hours of dvds (except for postage and handling) that's required for a newcomer to "prepare" themselves to be considered able to enter that Knowledge Session. Nor do newcomers pay for the facilities that they go to when they "receive" the Knowledge techniques", So yes, "Everything (regarding receiving Knowledge) has always been free - attending the meetings and learning the techniques". But many people support making this gift available to others and contribute time and money to do so. Just like people support the Red Cross that is a multi million dollar enterprise with cars and planes and buildings and paid staff. No one makes them, they want to help.Momento (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comparison of anything Rawat-related to The Red Cross is specious, misleading, and false. It's tantamount to Jossi's comparison of "Millennium '73" to the bombing of Pearl Harbor which was a grandiose comparison.  Elan Vital, The Prem Rawat Foundation, and Prem Rawat are in no way "like" the Red Cross.  You're misleading people by saying that, you know you're misleading people, and you ought to stop doing it.  The fact is that the Red Cross isn't an NRM or a cult, it doesn't keep it's fundraising secret from the public, it never  conceals its fundraising efforts by keeping them private from some contributors, as in Rawat-related organization's practices of holding secret meetings with wealthy, major donors.


 * Furthermore, The Red Cross doesn't have a spiritual leader, titular or otherwise, therefore it never holds private programs on private "charity" held land where darshan lines are conducted so Red Cross contributors can line up to kiss the feet of its spiritual Master, while handing over envelopes filled with undocumented cash. The Red Cross doesn't conduct secret initiation sessions for people, like Elan Vital does (which the Knowledge sessions surely are), there are no requireiments of members or donors to make promises to keep secrets in the Red Cross, as Elan Vital and Prem Rawat asks of its initiates, and there are no requirements when one contributes to the Red Cross, that donors devote themselves to an individual Avatar, Messiah-figure, as Prem Rawat surely is.  So please stop talking to people here as if they are morons, Momento.  Divine Light Mission/Elan Vital and TPRF don't hold a candle to any legitimate charity organizations that have decades-long legitimacy and a legitimate focus on helping people (for the sake of helping people, not enriching a leader or CEO).  The fact is that anyone who becomes a follower of Prem Rawat is strongly pressured to donate money, with urgency to do so applied.  And anyone who denies that fact is a baldfaced liar.  Sylviecyn (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I fear this sort of message is getting far afield of the purpose of a talk page. This is a biography of a living person. The article has many faults, to be sure, and needs much work, but argumentation is not going to help much. I know religion and politics always arouse strong feelings, but can we possibly remove feelings from this article so that it fairly represents Rawat's life? That is why I wanted to know precisely the model for financing (which I am still not sure about) and the like.  Calling people liar or the like, by the way, rarely makes them disposed to reach compromise in the goal of improving the article. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right. But you know what?  I've had it with Wikipedia's idiotic rules and guidelines when they are rewritten to promote a destructive personality cult which is what Prem Rawat is all about. I've also had it with Wikipedia's inability to recognize a COI when it's staring them in the eyes ... [refactored]


 * Have you taken the time to read all of the archives of all of the Rawat articles and their talk pages? You really need to do that before you insert yourself here because this is a series of extremely contentious articles that are filled with controversy and a helluva lot of craziness courtesy of the Rawat adherents.  You also need to get hold of the informal Mediation pages (there are many, Will may be able to hook you up) and their associated talk pages, as well as the ARBCOM request/decision/talk pages and their many associated talk and draft pages, before you jump in here.  Then there are the many requests for comments, and requests for comments on reliable sources and those associated talk pages.  Five years worth. This isn't a simple bio article about a "living person" on Wikipedia.


 * I'm not trying to be rude or contrary, but the fact is that when someone makes comments like Momento and Jossi have done in the past few days about Rawat's path of practicing Knowlege being free of charge, I just refuse to stand by and let [it] go unchallenged.  Frankly, I don't care if it doesn't foster good relations with them.  I wish you well and good luck, Collect, as well as happy reading and best wishes to you too.  Please notice that I don't edit the main pages, even though I don't have a real COI as Jossi and Momento here do have.  I restrain myself from doing that on purpose becasue I've been accused of having a COI and nefarious motives here, which are also all lies.  I merely make comments when the truth is stretched to such a degree that it becomes intolerable.  You really need to read up on this and get up to speed.  Sylviecyn (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's remain calm, everybody. This is obviously a can of worms. It gets into the subject's sources of income, I suggest we go with something simple, like, "Rawat does not charge money for initiating students into Knowledge, but students are encouraged to give donations." ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Still creates a misleading impression. It insinuates money does play a role in receiving and practicing Knowledge, even if only in a covert manner. Rawat goes to great lengths to systematically avoid the impression of any connotation between Knowledge and money. And people who are interested in the Knowledge are actually as a rule never even only “encouraged” to give money, not even in an indirect way. People donate, to keep it like this. If aspirants happen to be willing to donate, they probably won’t be rejected, as that would be neurotic. If they are satisfied with the experience of Knowledge and wish to contribute, that’s o.k. Of course money is always needed for keeping the activities of the organisation going. But Rawat and EV are really very sensitive about this issue, and that is in itself quite noteworthy and should not be overlooked deliberately. Rawat does not live from donations. Different statements are merely based on assumptions.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The source says "Each person is invited to contribute..." So whether we say students are encouraged to donate or are invited to donate the meaning is the same. The source makes it clear that Rawat doesn't wait for people to donate whatever sum strikes their fancy - a specific sum is suggested. I think the proposal I put forth is simple and avoids getting into detail either about the finances of EV or Prem Rawat. It's sourced directly from EV. Can you suggest better text that includes the fact that donations are invited? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No. It would be more accurate to say "Rawat personally has never asked for donations but senior members ask for donations to cover expenses of Prem's travels, national and local organizations, events, etc. and to compensate for poor countries that cannot pay all the costs involved in the organizations and events. In Europe the cost of an average event with 3.000 persons is about $90 which may be paid in advance through Internet or at the entrance, and persons with special economic difficulties may ask for free entrance". That would be in my opinion something reflecting the truth. Prem has to fly sometimes for many hours 10 or 12, and then go to an event, then back to the hotel, sleep, in the morning back to the plane more hours, then another event, usually each tour including 5 o 6 countries, etc. He could hire a pilot, but flying himself has saved the organizations the salary of a pilot for many years. These are the things people do not like to see. We see what we want to see.--Pedrero (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What EV says and what Rawat says are two different things. You can put it in the EV article.Momento (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In which case, most of the material related to EV does not belong here. Collect (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is about Rawat, what he did and what he said.Momento (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with moving the whole topic of Knowledge being free and donations being invited to the EV article. But we can't include just half of the matter in this article. If Rawat and EV disagree on whether to collect donations for his appearances then that's also a worthwhile topic, though I haven't seen any sources to document this supposed disagreement. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The page that Will linked to relates to an official event where Rawat gave Knowledge, does it not? If so, then I don't think we can honestly say that this is nothing to do with Rawat, or with Knowledge being free. That said, I would rather have a secondary source commenting on this matter than extrapolating from this primary source. Failing that, and pending verification that this cost structure is typical at Knowledge-giving events, we could say that "participants are encouraged to contribute a specified amount to the cost of events where Knowledge is given." Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 19:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayen: That event was not an event in which "Knowledge was given". It was an event to which PR was invited to speak at. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I see your point clearly. What was the nature of his speech? Collect (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (e/c, reply to Jossi:) Ah, you're right. My reading skills were off. Not the same thing. Cheers, Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 20:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Does Jossi or anyone have links to notices of events at which "Knowledge is given" that clearly indicate the events are free and that donations are neither invited nor encouraged? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is one that relates:  Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 21:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the tail wagging the dog. Some editors want to say that Rawat charges for Knowledge and are trying to find any source that will support their POV. But he hasn't, doesn't and won't charge for Knowledge. You're wasting your, and our, time.Momento (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That doesn't really answer the question of whether donations are solicited. It does say:
 * When you have watched Keys #1 through #5 and are clear that you would like to be taught the techniques of Knowledge, you may send a request to Maharaji. Key Six is shown during a special session in which Maharaji teaches the techniques of Knowledge via a video presentation. Such sessions take place throughout the year all over the world....  There is  no charge  for The Keys or the preparation.
 * What we're looking for is a description of one of these events that makes it clear that donations aren't invited or encouraged, as they are at personal appearances by Rawat. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No Will, what you should be looking for is a source which provides a "description of one of these events that makes it clear that donations ARE invited or encouraged" but there isn't one. PS. I'm looking for a source that says "Wikipedia isn't responsible for World War II. Does anyone have one?Momento (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have a link to an announcement for one of these events? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no such a thing as an "announcement" that I am aware. When you prepare via the Keys, on Key 5 you get a form to ask for Knowledge and in response you get an invitation to attend a session in your locality. See How do I ask for Knowledge?, and Is there a charge for viewing the Keys and receiving Knowledge? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * May we see what an invitation looks like? So far I haven't seen anything that would indicate this language is incorrect: "Rawat does not charge money for initiating students into Knowledge, but students are encouraged to give donations." ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is that you are doubting what it says in these web pages? For your information, no donations are requested for attending a Key Six session, in fact it is much simpler than you think: you get the invitation with a list of locations and dates, and you show up on that day at the time established. You even get some refreshments mid-way through the session which are provided by local volunteers, also at no charge. There is not much to it, really, and I do not know why are you and others making such a big deal of it, unless you have been reading too much into dubious sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Which sources are dubious? Can you show us one of these invitations? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Whichever sources are you using to make that assertion. Even if I can get hold of an invitation letter, how would we be able to use it in WP? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion is quite surreal. Jossi, Momento, Rumiton, and every other follower of Rawat who is/was on their local/national communities' mailing list knows that there has been a constant stream of requests for donations from Elan Vital/Divine Light Mission/TPRF.  There was a time when Rawat's personal address was publicised at official Elan Vital events for people to send him donations.  It is one thing for Jossi, Momento, et al to argue that there are no usable sources for these facts, but for them to claim that such requests for money have not been a constant part of Rawat's movement brings their good faith into serious question. --John Brauns (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we have New Republic quoting mahatma telling initiates to empty their wallets (see above). We have Richardson talking about the financing of new religions:
 * Messer (1976) goes into some detail about DLM finances, and her findings are substantiated by Pilarzyk (1978a) and Stoner and Parke (1977). Messer notes that the DLM receives many large donations from members and outsiders, but most funding comes from more regular smaller donations by communal members who work outside the ashrams (communes) or who live noncommunally and work at outside jobs of one type or another. Funds are also received from service-like businesses (such as janitorial services) operated by individual ashrams, but these usually are not large moneymakers. The only public solicitation used by the DLM seems to be asking merchants or other people for old possessions to sell in rummage sales and small secondhand stores. A DLM former member in the Netherlands claimed that the group there gathered and sold over five hundred thousand dollars worth of such goods in their most fruitful year.5 A high-level decision was made by DLM leadership in America several years ago to sponsor more festivals, because the festivals, which are major ritual events for members of the DLM, are money-making events. The participants, most of whom are members, must pay sizeable amounts of money (fifty to one hundred dollars) to participate, and sometimes the festivals attract thousands of followers. Also, the devotees in festivals take part in the ritual of darshan, which involves offering goods or money during the time of the festival when they receive a personal blessing from the guru. Large offerings are sometimes received, which adds to the financial attractiveness of the festivals.
 * Are these dubious sources? As for the invitation, it might help clear this up. So far we have notices saying that students are invited to donate, which is what I'm suggesting we add to the article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The first source is from 35 years ago, and refers to a "mahatma" and not to PR, and the Messer source is from 32 years ago, which does not refer to the subject at hand. So, may you consider that things have evolved since the crazy 70's? As for the letter, I have seen such letters and as I said, it simply states the location, date and time for the session, and there are no requests or other type of solicitations. Maybe this is way too honorable for the perspective you have developed on the subject, but it is that plain and simple: there is no requests for donations, solicitations or any other such actions as it pertains to preparing for Knowledge and receiving it. It s a gift, as stated in the official Website. So, why don't you use the source that says just that? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Not dubious, but quite old. From what I read, the Knowledge session today is a DVD presentation, and it's free, just like the other Keys. In the session, people are asked to keep in touch, i.e. to attend events where Maharaji speaks: at those, as we've seen, they are asked to contribute, if they can, to the cost of the event. I don't see anything particularly suspicious in that. Zillions of churches ask for similar, sometimes greater commitments. Some premies get together and fund outreach efforts to make equipment available so that Key Six presentations can happen in less well-off countries. Again, that's a humanitarian effort if you believe in what you're doing, so the comparison to the Red Cross is not entirely misplaced. If you're an ideologically opposed outsider, you'd call it a missionary effort. But again, many religions engage in those. At least, here people are given a tool to work with themselves, while other missionaries may tell you that you are saved simply by converting (or may tell you that you will burn in some kind of hell if you don't convert). Just musing. I think we should abandon this OR effort. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 00:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite right. See:
 * ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * [E/C] Many sources for this article are old because the article deals with someone who has been around for decades. If this article was title "Prem Rawat since 2001" then we wouldn't need to use any of them. His mahatmas may have demanded money in the 1970s and no longer demanded money in the 1980s. Fine, we can say that if we have sources for it. If we're going to include the assertion that there is no charge for Knowledge then we also need to mention that sources dispute that assertion. Otherwise we'd give readers with a one-sided view of the matter, and that would violate NPOV. Anyway, the assertion has been removed from the article. Unless someone wants to add it back I'm happy to drop this. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no "one-side view of the matter, if we simply attribute the assertion to the sources, as we have done with other material. The fact was and remains that Knowledge has always been given free of charge, even at the time of Swarupanand or even before that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

According to yoga initiation has always been free for thousands of years. But since masters do not work, or at least most of them, followers always helped with money, Prem's father always gave free lodgning and meals to people in his house. Money cannot come from heaven literally.--Pedrero (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Tell that to Rawson, who was told to take all of the money out of his pockets and place it before the photo of the subject, and who was asked "Do you love Guru Maharaj Ji, or do you love your money?" Clearly, initiates have been asked for money. Again, I think we should just leave out this disputed matter unless we want to give a full discussion of it that includes all significant points of view. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that a "significant point of view"? I doubt it, and even if you can make a case for being significant which I seriouls doubt, in reading that piece one can see what Rawson's intention was. Unless you are unable to see that, in which case there is no much more to dicuss here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If no one is planning to add back the assertion then there's nothing further to discus. If an editor intends to do that then we need to resolve this. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's back.Momento (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That wasn't helpful. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought some one might have removed the section "taught free of charge" but I was amazed to see the whole section was removed. What is a guru without a teaching?Momento (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the subject still a guru? Anyway, since the "free of charge" assertion is back I'll add the "donations are encouraged" view as well. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If Rawat says Knowledge is free, it should be in this article. And if he has asked for donations, it should be in too. But whatever mahatma, premie or organization has said should be in their article, not this. Simple.Momento (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If we didn't mention anything about the subject's following, that might make sense. But the subject does have followers who are reportedly asked to donate money. The mere fact that those requests come from people beside the subject doesn't that money isn't being requested. If I go to a concert it isn't the performer who collects the money: it's the fellow at the ticket counter. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If the performer says it's a free concert and thousands of people get in for free but some one says you need to buy a ticket, you cannot say the performer is asking for money or that money is being asked for on his behalf. Fakiranand attacked Halley despite Rawat saying "I don't want him arrested or harmed". We have a premie saying "Venusians are coming to Millennium", and we don't say Rawat made the claim. This article is about what Rawat did and said, not any one or two of his millions of followers.Momento (talk) 03:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Will, do not keep adding non Rawat material to this article.Momento (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The things that are said by Rawat's senior aids on his behalf, by the TPRF, are indeed relevant.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your assumption that they are said on his behalf is OR. But just so you know "There is no commitment expected of those not living in the ashram to contribute to the guru, Mishler added, although many do".(Sat, Aug. 19, 1972 GREELEY (Colo.) TRIBUNE 21)Momento (talk) 05:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I can find more sources. Please stop reverting this, or just leave it out entirely. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just one source of Rawat saying "Knowledge is free but I encourage you to donate" will do. Here's the first half, Rawat says "Knowledge has been made absolutely free for you" WIGM p229. Now you provide the quote that says "but I encourage you to give donations (for it).Momento (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is wrong to say that Prem encourages us to donate. Prem never asked for money. His followers did. Of course people are asked to donate, because many times expenses were and are higher than donations, specially in poor countries. Prem travels to his followers doing 200/300 thousand miles per year. Concerning the figure of $750 per follower/year, I want to know where it comes from, or is it another rumor?. Do you think people can pay $750 per year in poor countries? Or is that the average and to compensate for poor people/countries who give little or nothing the figure for US and Europe should rise to thousans of $ per year? If someone says I have heard/read that each member is asked to pay (or is paying without being asked) $x thousand/year is that fair to make it part of Prem's biography though no one can quote him saying anything like that? There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of hours of his speeches along more than four decades on print, audio and video. When did he ever ask for money? Please.--Pedrero (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please provide another source for "Knowledge has been made absolutely free for you": WIGM can only be used for non-controversial statements in this context; the assertion of Knowledge being free is controversial: third-party journalists tell a different story.
 * The same goes for thekeys.maharaji.net, a promotional website, currently used as a reference for the "free of charge" material in the intro of the Rawat article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing controversial about it. And WIGM is independently published and a reliable source for anything.Momento (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So are you saying that a 1973 book is acceptable but a 1973 magazine is too old? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that Will. Be careful.Momento (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, it was Jayen who discussed old sources. So I gather you don't agree with his point. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Excellent sources Will. But none have Rawat saying "Knowledge is free but I encourage you to make donations". Everybody knows devotees contributed to support the Mission and spread the teachings, you can put these in the DLM EV articles.Momento (talk) 07:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This article discusses followers. Should we move that entire discussion to the DLM/EV articles too? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to understand the difference between what Rawat says and what others say. And the difference between providing information and Knowledge free to new people and the supporting and funding of those activities by people who already have Knowledge and want to see it spread. Perhaps a less taxing example will help. A man provides free food for people made homeless after a disaster. After a while some of the people who received the free food recognise its value and start working with the man to spread the free food system. As a result of their efforts more free food is made available. The food is always free for those who need it but the energy and money needed to expand it is donated by those who see the value of it. You cannot say the food isn't free just because some of the people who received it contribute to the service, voluntarily at a later date.Momento (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't find this matter taxing, though it's kind of you to be concerned. Regarding your first point, the subject was head of an organization. No one here disputes that. No one has presented any sources saying that the subject didn't want his followers nagged to make donations, or that he discouraged his mahatmas from demanding money before initiations, or that he didn't want his followers to buy him new jet planes, or to pay for the planes' operating expenses. If you have those sources please provide them. From what I've read, a closer analogy would be to a restaurant offering free food, but after the meal diners are told they are now indebted to the chef for the rest of their lives. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So much OR. And now you're turning Wiki policy on its head. No longer do we have to supply sources to verify claims, we have to find sources to dispute unverified claims. And you still can't tell the difference between offering Knowledge for free and people donating money so that it can be offered for free. As for our restaurant, we have 10s of 1000s fed for free and one mahatma saying "now your indebted to the chef for the rest of their lives". No wonder Rawat sent them all packing.Momento (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What claim is unverified? That followers were asked for donations by the people in Rawat's organizations? See above - that assertion is indeed verifiable. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Is everyone happy with the version as it stands now? We have: "According to publications by Rawat's organizations he does not charge money for initiating students into Knowledge.[146][147] Students are however encouraged to give donations.[148][149]"
 * I thought we could use Jossi's primary source making reference to optional registration fees at speaking events, and voluntary donations being invited at other times, but if everyone is happy as is I can live with that too. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 15:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is the second unverified claim that "According to publications by Rawat's organizations he does not charge money for initiating students into Knowledge. Students are however encouraged to give donations." Since the "encourager" is not separately identified and the article is about Rawat the structure suggests that the person who (Rawat) does not charge money for initiating students into Knowledge" is the same person who does "however encourage (students) to give donations". The sources supplied have the organizations not Rawat encouraging people to give donations. I have therefore made it clear that Rawat does not charge but the organizations are supported by volunteers and donations.Momento (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How about, ""According to publications by Rawat's organizations he does not charge money for initiating students into Knowledge,[146][147] though the organizations encourage students to give donations.[148][149]" That indicates who is doing the encouraging.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's fine as is. We don't need to qualify who says what Rawat does. And it is sufficient to say how the organizations operate which includes volunteers.Momento (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, then how's this, "Rawat says he does not charge money for initiating students into Knowledge,[146][147] though his organizations encourage students to give donations.[148][149]"? That eliminates the unnecessary attribution. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The current version, which Momento just wrote, says he doesn't charge for talk, which is misleading since an expected donation. And "organizations that support his work" is unnecessarily elliptical. We can just call them "his organizations". ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't misleading. He doesn't charge and he doesn't expect a donation. The organizations may suggest a donation from people who have Knowledge to cover the cost of an event but non members are not asked for a donation. And they aren't "his" organizations they're "organizations that support his work".Momento (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The source doesn't say that only initiated followers are asked for donations. "This event is supported by contributions. $90 per person is the average amount needed to cover the anticipated costs. Each person is invited to contribute according to his or her ability." I'm not quite sure why you say they aren't "his organizations". We say that he founded the TPRF. Is that incorrect? Is he not the spiritual leader of the EV? I believe it says so on the articles of incorporation, IIRC. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've edited it to read, "Rawat does not charge for initiating students into Knowledge. His organizations solicit donations from students to support his work." The line about not charging for talks is misleading since donations are requested, and saying his organizations are supported by volunteers implies that it is a volunteer organization without paid staff. I'm not sure what the source is for volunteers anyway. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're too U.S. centric Will. There are dozens of organizations around the world who spread Rawat's message which have no legal or organizational links to Rawat and are run entirely by volunteers. But rather than find sources I'm changing the second sentence to mirror the lead "Organizations that assist in spreading his message are supported by donations".Momento (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I only know what I read. I haven't read anything about these all-volunteer organizations. You left off the "solicited from students" part, which is sourced. I've added it back. In its current form, I think this is acceptable.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought we had a consensus, but Momento keeps changing it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the source Will and you'll have less trouble. It isn't only students who support the organizations, there's doctors and mothers and little old ladies. In other words, all sorts of people who appreciate his message. Just like the source says.Momento (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean that it isn't "only students who support the organizations"? Are you asserting that non-students/followers/initiates/premies are significant contributors? I've never heard that before. As for the sources, yes, let's stay close. Messer says that "All devotees are encouraged and nagged to donate funds of their own." I've tried "encouraged to donate", and you didn't like that. I tried "solicited donations" and you reverted that repeatedly. How about "According to one member, followers are nagged to donate funds of their own." Is that close enough to the source for you? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL. :-)) But then that source is 35 years old.
 * Jossi has taken "solicited" out again. Is that section fine now as it stands? Or should we agree to some compromise such as "Related organizations that support the dissemination of Rawat's message invite contributions from students and are funded by donations." --?  Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 19:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've compromised every which way on this, and still it gets deleted. So I'm going to add the text above. It's sourced, neutral, and goes to the issue of how donations were obtained. If anyone has a contrary source saying that followers aren't nagged then they're welcome to add that too. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, Momento deleted the sourced material. He copied a small portion to the DLM article. In order to maintain NPOV, I've copied the rest of what I added along with the claims of the teachings being free. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to copy this to DLM, given that it's talking about the Keys and the present time. And FWIW, what you added about the nagging, while not without its comic effect, does not belong into a "Teaching" section IMO. I think I'll go to bed now and come back another day when it's slightly less hot in the kitchen. Suggest everyone take it easy. Cheers, Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 02:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My only request here, is that if we're going to say that "Knowledge is free" that we also say that "donations are encouraged" at the same time. That is an extremely mild statement. We have plenty of sources for the fact that Rawat's early followers were strongly encouraged to donate large sums of money, indeed their entire inheritances, with the implicit agreement that entry into an ashram was akin to entry into a convent - a lifetime commitment. Then, after giving everything they had, that commitment was unilaterally ended by Rawat when he closed the ashrams a few years later after collecting (and spending) millions of dollars in donations. This is all material that's well-sourced. So, we have the choice of saying nothing about Knowledge being free, or we can say there's no charge but donations are encouraged, or we can devote a section to discussing the finances related to the teaching of Knowledge. I think the first two choices are better.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

From 1974 to 2008, 34 years going to an event almost every year, and I never heard that anyone was asked to give any property. Are rumors and things like and "I have read" and "I have heard" accepted?--Pedrero (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Donations are encouraged" or "... invited" is fine by me, and I believe both fair and accurate. I'd be happy to mention as well that this invitation to contribute funds is in relation to Rawat's speaking events, or to Premies' participation in outreach efforts. The nagging story and the pocket-emptying story are perhaps best placed in the DLM article. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 02:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as we keep it to a line or so, that's fine with me too. It's when folks want to add several lines about how the teachings are free that there's a need for more material to balance it. The DLM was an important part of the subject's life. Unless we start this biography in 1982 we can't leave out relevant DLM material. It may be that as the subject's fortunes grew he no longer needed to have his mahatmas present him with bags of money. Many parts of the subect's suituation changed between 1966 and 2008. We're writing a biography of the whole man.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should DLM/EV/TPRF be singled out as "soliciting, encouraging or inviting" donations. This page says "Donate now" to Wikipedia but nothing is said about ""soliciting, encouraging or inviting" donations in the Wikipedia article. The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is described as "a non-profit charitable organization" that "is dependent mostly on donations". Nothing about "soliciting, encouraging or inviting" donations". Yet right up the top of this page is the demand "Donate now". It would easier to edit Rawat and related articles if Rawat was treated as an individual and DLM/EV/TPRF were described in the same way as other " non-profit charitable organizations" without the weasels words and phrases.Momento (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Every article should reliably summarize relevant material found in reliable sources. This articles isn't about Jesus or Wikipedia. Those topics have sub-articles like Jesus' sexuality and Criticism of Wikipedia. Would you like to see this article have comparable subarticles? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There are already articles on DLM and EV so that's covered.Momento (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "...so that's covered." So what is covered?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)