Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 49

Addition to Media section
As per Maelefique there has been confusion about what Rawat said about God in his talks and what others said he said. Since Rawat has clearly stated that he, and in fact no human being, can be God then the misunderstanding has come from people misquoting Rawat and that is amply demonstrated in the media. Therefor I propose inserting something like the following sentence as the second sentence in the media section - "Despite making it absolutely clear that he wasn't God and that no human being could be God and that God, as far as he was concerned, was pure and perfect energy, the media falsely claimed that Rawat suggested he was God in numerous articles." Sources to come.Momento (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ''Dear Reader,

By the grace of Almighty Lord, we bring you the magazine And It Is Divine. You will find this magazine very different from others, because it shows not only the suffering of the world, but also a way out for all humanity. There has never been a time when the Lord of Creation did not manifest Himself in human form, and come to this planet Earth to do away with evil and spread the True Knowledge. But history is a pendulum which is always in swing. There have been so many scriptures, but still people have never been able to understand Him. Divine Light Mission wants to bring world peace by sharing the Knowledge which is within us by the grace of Almighty Lord. In this magazine, we hope to give information about the peace which lives within us, which Guru Maharaj Ji reveals. Sant Ji Maharaj (Guru Maharaj Ji's preface   for the DLM magazine 'And It Is Divine'    published in the 70's and early 80's) ''no further comment necessary Surdas (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you think the magazine is named "And IT is divine", and not And HE is divine? For my taste it is a bit demagogic and phariseean, and not very encyclopedian, to capitalize on people's mainstream ignorance in these matters and insinuate blasphemy ("he said Jehovah!"), when it is only a lack of understanding. That magazine was published in an early stadium of Rawat's mission, when a lot of Indian culture still reflected in those publications and elsewhere around Rawat. I am sure we had this discussed at length on these pages in the past and don't hopefully need to go through it all over again.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly Rainer. And please also note that PR says "within US by the grace of Almighty Lord" - clearly distancing himself from Almighty Lord.Momento (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I don't consider a DLM publication to be "the media" that this section was supposed to be about. Also, if Rawat said he wasn't God, that does not mean that he never said he was God, and if we have quotes that show both things, then both sides of that should be covered, not just one, that would clearly be a POV submission, especially if we have his own words, quoted from his own literature. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 15:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. We are talking only about whether PR said he was "God" and not anything else. We have definitive denials, I'll see if I can find mainstream media suggesting he is or said he was God to verify the proposed sentence.Momento (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Your proposed sentence has basic flaws, it assumes he never contradicted himself (See previous section), and so far, I have not seen any sources that show "the Media" falsely claiming he was God (but I'm interested to see them before making up my mind on that part). Until those issues are dealt with, as well as the issue in the previous section about Divinity/divinity, I don't see how I can support your sentence as accurate. POV issues abound in the language proposed as well, and is in fact refuted by "And It Is Divine" again, as quoted to you above, "There has never been a time when the Lord of Creation did not manifest Himself in human form", that is contradictory to your proposed edit that would have us insert "no human being could be God" into the article. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 02:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above "I'll see if I can find mainstream media suggesting he is or said he was God to verify the proposed sentence". And a basic tenet of virtually every religion is that God, the Almighty is omnipresent and infinite, so everything is God. And this Almighty Power created or manifested everything including human being and gurus. So to say "there has never been a time when the Lord of Creation did not manifest Himself in human form' is a basic for religion. But the point of that phrase is not that God is and does everything but that God manifests a Guru.Momento (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OR, WP:SYN, take your pick, either way, that's not a legitimate argument based on those two policies. As Rainer said, and I said, above, let PR's words speak for themselves, people can make up their own minds. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 03:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just pointing out that the preface to AIID doesn't suggest PR is saying he's God. In fact, I don't think you'll find him saying it. But you need to come up with a decent source that says that there was confusion about whether PR said he was God rather than your opinion that there was confusion and trying to bend a quote to your purpose.Momento (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Since we seem somewhat deadlocked on this issue, I have asked for comments, here. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 06:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish here, Maelefique. There are so many Prem Rawat quotes that demonstrate quite well Rawat's belief in his own divinity, i.e., Guru Maharaj Ji is greater than God, the greatest incarnation of God to manifest in a body on earth, greater than Jesus, Krishna, Mohammed, and someone that people of the world ought to bow down to and worship.  Quote mining has never been successful on this article.  If you would like, I'd be happy cut and paste here dozens and dozens of examples of Rawat demonstrating his belief in his own divinity, as well as the beliefs of followers in Rawat's divinity.  Best wishes...  Sylviecyn (talk)
 * I am just following the process, it seems quite obvious to me, and to Rainer (based on his recent submission to the request for comments board) that there is quite a lot of confusion over the matter of whether he claimed to be God or not, and that's my point. Others here seem to feel there's no confusion whatsoever. Even the book that was referenced by Momento earlier "who is GMJ?" asks the question "Why do more than six million people around the world claim he is the greatest incarnation of God that ever trod the face of this planet?" so it seems like something that should be in the article. To put in in the article, first we have to discuss sources. I think we've now tried that, I've presented my side of the issue, Momento doesn't agree. That's ok. It's still a process. Since it doesn't appear that there's any movement of opinions, I've requested non-formal help in the form of the RFC for these sections. After that, it will either have more of a consensus, that would allow us to craft an actual edit for the article (such as the one I suggested in the previous section), or consensus will say this isn't correct, in which case, maybe I've misunderstood the situation. I guess we'll wait and see what happens next. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 14:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The "confusion" exercise is WP:OR. It is irrelevant if an editor is confused, what is required is that a reliable source says there was "confusion". And none of our 141 reliable sources mention it. Sylviecyn's right, quote mining will never work. And it doesn't help if you cannot tell the difference between being "Divine" and being "God". They are entirely different.Momento (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. Therefore I've taken the conversation elsewhere for uninvolved opinions. Please don't confuse the issue further by claiming I only quoted him saying he was Divine. I have, in fact, not presented a single instance of that. Please don't tell me you don't understand the similarity between "The Lord" (caps are his), and "God". To be helpful, I will Quote Rawat again for you, ""Lord of Mercy." Some only say "Lord," some say "God," some say "Lord Christ." Same thing" If you can't understand why that might confuse the average wiki-reader on this point then it's probably time for formal mediation on this. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 23:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Geaves says something about it in his papers. I will take some time though to look. Anybody interested in a .pdf-copy or two of a Geaves's paper?--Rainer P. (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would certainly like to read some work by Geaves on that issue, but I think it's getting away from my point, which is that there is confusion as to what PR said/meant, and that the situation has gone away over time as he no longer refers to the issue in his public discourses. I'm not sure Geaves is going to say anything about that specific issue. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 01:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, either, but I would not be amazed if he had. I have tried to contact Prof. Geaves on Facebook, asking him to possibly point out a corresponding statement in his publications or in another RS, as he could maybe save us a lot of reading time, but he has not responded yet.--Rainer P. (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Here are a few "God" claims by the media -


 * Guru, 14, takes all

By Jill Robertson Sunday Mirror, November 1972 Shinding by jet for a fat-faced 'God' TONIGHT 350 British disciples of a fourteen-year-old Indian "god," Guru Maharaj Ji, leave London on an astonishing jet age pilgrimage to Delhi.


 * "Guru Ji Superstar

When the jet containing the adolescent living God and 350 disciples touched down in India,.


 * "Nothing tatty" for boy Guru

The "boy god" leader of the Divine Light Mission bought a 20,000 pound new car yesterday but was not shy about being photographed in it.


 * Why a God kept me waiting

By the Rev. John Lambert Vicar of Cuffley, Herts. WHEN THIS poor parson went to meet God he tried to bunk out of the back door.


 * The Guru Business

by Kushwant Singh

The New York Times, April 8, 1973 Kushwant Singh is the editor of the Illustrated Weekly of India BOMBAY. The Delhi headquarters of the Divine Light Mission is like a fortress: an 8-foot-high wall with an iron-grilled gate encloses a courtyard and a complex of buildings consisting of offices, reception rooms, kitchen, refectory, dormitories, a temple and the residential Suite of Balyogeshwar, the Child God. -


 * The 'boy god' with a taste for ice cream...

and the good things of life Back in Britain today - the guru with some questions to answer about his wealth... and a smuggling riddle Daily Mail, Thursday, July 12, 1973 - Page 21


 * Guru Keeps Track Of Subjects With Computer

GREAT BEND TRIBUNE, Great Bend, Kansas Sunday, September 23, 1973 EDITOR's NOTE: To a swelling number of followers, Guru Maharaj Ji is the "Perfect Master". Some even call him God. But to others, he is a pudgy, 15-year-old business titan who processes his disciples through a personnel department and keeps track of them with a computer. Here is a look at the guru and his mushrooming missionary corporation.


 * THE GURU WHO MINDS HIS MOTHER

By MALCOLM N. CARTER Associated Press Page A 6	THE STARS AND STRIPES Sunday, November 4, 1973 THEN CAME the guru with a promised path to inner serenity and an answer to life's great questions. To his fervid followers, he is God himself.

Momento (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * So, what? (The above edit is not signed. It does not come from me! Please round that out)--Rainer P. (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Can't you remember Rawat teaching you he was God? Why not speak about it honestly? I was there & remember! It's all perfectly simple...Prem Rawat has always spoken out of both sides of his mouth about his divine authority as is well described by Sophie Collier in 'Soul Rush'. His more 'fervid followers' (mentioned above) have always seen him as 'The Lord' but don't want to admit that this is what Rawat has essentially taught them. If Rawat did not believe he was God then why else would he order ('give Agya to' was the terminology used)  followers to sing to him every day "Creator, Preserver, Destroyer Bow their heads and pray to You All bow and pray to You Scriptures sing Your glory Heaveny hosts sing Your praises Your virtues are ever true Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev"  etc.  Arti. Why else would he NEVER deny, or discourage it and constantly encourage his instructors to perpetrate the idea he was the Lord?

All this apologetic talk suggesting Rawat never claimed he was God is only from people who are simply afraid that their Lord will be led away and crucified like the Lord Jesus whom most of them think he is the modern equivalent (or superior) of. Oh..and all this talk about Rawat wasn't aware of the Christian interpretation of his Indiany words etc is extremely dubious. Why? Because Rawat went to a Catholic school, was surrounded by people from the Christian tradition etc. Also I for one probably won't be too impressed with Professor Geaves' opinions on the matter. He is a famous follower & (IMHO) Rawat apologist who appears on Rawat promo videos etc. PatW (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Emotional stress reduces the power of discrimination. Still you were lucky to correct the first version of your entry, probably feeling the dreaded Blade of the Northern Light hovering above your head... Maybe you could even manage to be constructive.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is specious for anyone to suggest that because Prem Rawat never said the words "'I am God," that it logically follows that he never claims to be Divine (capital "D"). To do so is a bastardization and blantant revision of the true history of Prem Rawat's life, as well as the history of Prem Rawat's cult/new religious movement, and especially to his followers.  After all, without all those premies who still worship Prem Rawat to this day (and he allows them to do so without denials) Prem Rawat wouldn't warrant a page on Wikipedia.  It's a fairy tale for anyone to state categorically that Prem Rawat didn't say x = "I am God," therefore y = "Rawat always denied he was God, Lord, Jesus, etc."  It simply didn't happen that way and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.  This proposal is a red herring and it ought to be tossed out because it stinks to high heaven.  Sylviecyn (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You could see that as one reason we're working our way through mediation on this topic now. These things take time. It's been completely left out of the article for years, so I don't see any reason to rush the process along now. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 17:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not only did he ever say: I am God, but he has explicitely stated: I am not God, and that is really well sourced. That's why it is treated in the article as it is. BTW "bastardization", "blatant revision", "stinks to heaven" - doesn't that somehow counteract our aspiration to more civility and constructiveness on this page? --Rainer P. (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My point is that it's also really well-sourced that Rawat claimed divinity, just not in the literal way Momento is adamant about. Moreover, I don't see the importance of pointing out in this article (or anywhere) that someone called Prem Rawat never said "I am not God."  Why is that even necessary?  I find it odd, don't you?  Isn't it like a non-denial, denial?  (Harking back to the Woodward/Bernstein days.)  My apologies for being hyperbolic.  But, frankly, reading this talk page has been trying my patience.  This is not a black and white issue.  Sylviecyn (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * FYI all, Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 6 has been filed. Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 23:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Incredible but funny discussions that remind me of the Middle Ages theological question of how many angels could fit in the point of a needle. If anti-Prem editors had learned yoga all this talk page would be different or unneccesary. When will some understand and/or accept that God is energy and everything and every one is God because every one and everything is energy? And that the only different between all realised yogis for thousands of years and the rest of us is that they finally experienced it in Samadhi and remembered it, and we still haven't? But as a passtime, I still find this talk page more interesting and funnier than cross-word puzzels, so if you enjoy it, carry on :-) --PremieLover (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll restrain my hilarious answer to merely repeating what you should have read above:


 * -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 18:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

OR noticeboard
Since it's article related, I thought I'd just let everyone know about Momento's clear and concise question at the OR board, here. (Sorry, had to strike out concise since its definition calls it "brief but comprehensive", and clearly, it wasn't). Just an FYI, please don't flood that page with additional comments if you don't really feel you have to. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 16:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Momento is desperate to argue someone wrong over some minutiae so as to distract from the clear picture that emerges from the sum of sources which state quite clearly that Maharaji encouraged people to believe he was God when they were prepared to buy into that belief, whilst on the other hand, he denied it to the press. Momento's done it many times before and he's doing it now - filibustering to disrupt communal progress. I hope Arbcom see through this unwelcome habit and put a stop to it.PatW (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Quite possibly. Presumably, I've got another 40 years or so in me, some processes take longer than others, I'm not trying to rush, I just want the record to be accurate, however long that takes. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 00:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Melton: "Maharaj Ji was no longer to be venerated as God". Maelefique, what is the "other half of the sentence" you are mentioning? Because I think, Momento is plainly right in stating that the quote does not support the statement, that Rawat had wanted to be be venerated as God to begin with. This is only one (and a biased) way to read it, and logically IMO an undue conclusion, especially, when Rawat systematically dismissed that notion. The quote can be read, that a drawback had been dealt with, as soon as the evolution of students' conciousness allowed. When Rawat appeared on the scene, people certainly believed all kinds of things, as they did not have much experience, neither with the Knowledge nor with God. Rawat was and is not in the believing business, he never encouraged nor discouraged people in believing anything, but to find out and know for themselves. This is the meaning of the Collier quote IMO. He is just not into reinforcing dogma, either which way. This makes it hard for religious minded people to nail him domn on such issues, as we are witnessing now. He is not being cunning or evasive, but rather antidogmatic. A lot of times he spoke against people's disposition to believe things, just because they have been said. There are no "two sides of his mouth", there is only a possible irritation in the minds of people who want to believe - because that is so much easier than to practice the Knowledge. Actually it is not a weakness, but a forte of his teachings. Now I am aware that it might be hard to substantiate this complex matter from secondary sources like Vogue or Rolling Stone, but the Melton quote seems to deliberately permit differing readings and should not be narrowed down here.--Rainer P. (talk) 04:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Without getting into a needless discussion here, since it's going to ArbCom anyway, as the editor there said, it's a straw man argument, since it has nothing to do with what we're discussing. However, he only gave half of half of Melton's quote. There was a preceding sentence, as well as another separate mention further along in the article, which you can easily see as one of the 18 sources I listed (Melton is the first and second sources) at the MedCom case. And you have a basic misunderstanding, I'm not the one trying to narrow it down, I want to include both views, Momento only seems to want 1 view, I don't agree with that option, I think it violates WP:NPOV that states that all views from reliable sources should be presented. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 04:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Eggzactly. We should present all views. Can't be fairer than that.PatW (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's have a neutrality contest.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's start by saying all those that are, or used to be, adherents of Rawat are disqualified...oh wait, that only leaves me ..ok...I guess that contest idea wasn't a good one. This is exactly what I was talking about above, what's the point of that? I see the uninvolved editor at OR/N has further clarified his comments as well, it seems clear to me that the question was designed to give back only one answer, which would then be used to prove a completely different point, and that's not really ok, is it Rainer? FYI, in case you're not familiar, or missed it above, I linked straw man so you can see why that's wrong. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 15:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean neutrality by history, but by actual behaviour. I guess, there is no such thing as neutrality by history. Seems more like a matter of personal disposition to me. You can not just rely on your history. Everybody makes mistakes, everybody can try to do their best every day, more than just indulging in old hang-ups. Analyzing quotes can lead to differing results, it depends a lot on the operating level of one's conciousness. Emotional imbalance caused by pressure, fear, anger, vengeance, fury, dogmatism, cantankerousness, arrogance and such harm everybody's judgement, no matter what one's personal legend is. Mental balance helps in most cases. So let's be patient. After all we are a team of complete strangers to each other, working globally on an ambitious project, which I find in itself fascinating.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * your comments have something similar with PremieLovers last contributions on the talkpage and i agree wir Maelefiques answer to it Surdas (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Surdas, here's a suggestion from your own user talk page, I could not have said it better: "Thanks for giving your input at talk:Prem Rawat. For the future, I'd like to suggest that it's best to avoid making even impersonal remarks about Rawat's followers or other Wikipedia editors, at least on article talk pages. Keeping discussions focused on the topics rather than the personalities seems to work well. (Of course I don't always follow my own advice, but I usually regret it when I don't).  Will Beback  talk  08:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)"--Rainer P. (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok kids, break it up. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 14:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * okok i leave the last word to the schoolmasterish reply Surdas (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Lima interview
How do you appraise this interview as a source? http://sites.willax.tv/ceciliavalenzuela/ --Rainer P. (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Depends on what you want to use it as a source for, what would you suggest we use that interview to support? Also, I notice it's mentioned here, where it says "Written by the WOPG Editorial Team", that doesn't sound particularly non-partisan to me. Why do you think this interview might be notable? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 06:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It is primarily accessible on the public tv-corporation's website (willax tv), not on youtube. The fact that TPRF mentions it, does not make it unreliable. Why should they not? I have not yet made my mind up what to use it for, want to make sure it can be used as a source at all, after the long discussion we had over Italian tv-stations. One statement could perhaps be: Rawat has been nominated for the Noble Peace Prize, which I learned first from the interview, see part 2, at 2:40.--Rainer P. (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Youtube is not inherently not ok, it depends on who uploaded it. No, the fact that TPRF mentions it, does not make it unreliable, I didn't say that. I was indicating that if this interview was written by WOPG, and just performed by Rawat and the interviewer, that would fall under WP:SPS, and it fails to meet those criteria, particularly because of the Nobel prize statement. (If that's the case). I saw a recent discussion here at WP:RSN about the Nobel Prize, and apparently (and you can confirm this from their website if you like), Nobel doesn't release the list of nominees for 50 years after the nomination. So I don't think we can use that claim unless you can somehow prove it another way. Rawat saying so is not a reliable source for that claim under WP rules (WP:V, WP:SPS, for a start). I'm not sure what else we can use this video for, we can say he was interviewed, it may be able to support some thinking of his (although that may go more towards the "teachings" article), but I don't see much notable here, so without knowing what you think it supports, I'm not sure what use it is. Here is the link to the RSN discussion, and here is the link to the Nobel site where it says:
 * Information about the nominations, investigations, and opinions concerning the award is kept secret for fifty years..
 * and
 * Since the nominations are kept secret for 50 years, you'll have to wait until then to find out.
 * (from a grammatical point of view someone should tell them for consistency, it should either be "50", or "fifty" on their website, not both!). -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 14:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I just googled "willax TV look who's talking" (no quotes), to see who else has been interviewed, and I cannot see a single link on the front page that isn't about Prem Rawat, or from Prem Rawat. That doesn't bode well for notability. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 14:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The only name I can find on the site (willax) to try and lend some credence/authority to their notability is Gilberto Hume, who unfortunately comes up in this article. I know latin politics/news/whatever is a little different than what I'm used to, but that does *not* seem like an ok thing to do (he didn't do it) or endorse (it looks like he's endorsing it to me, he certainly isn't condemning it). What would happen in your country if someone handed a politician a fake bomb? Would you say that was responsible journalism? I'm going to stop trying to find ways we can include this for now, because the more I try and find something, the more it seems to swing the opposite direction. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 14:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Rawat did not mention that nomination, but his talk host Cecilia Valenzuela did. He did not do much to expand on the issue. She seems to be a notable personality on Peruvian TV, and her talk show seems to be popular; see her Spanish WP-article. I see no connection to your fake-bomb-story. And the idea, that TPRF writes Rawat's interview is absurd, I think even contractors will agree with me. Concerning Nobel-Prize-nominations, I understand that merely the Noble Prize Committee in Norway is obliged to keep the nomenees' names secret for 50 years, but the nominating parties are free to publish their nominations right away. You cannot nominate yourself. Some appropriate personage has to. So we already know now that Bradley Manning has been nominated (the guy who faces trial for channeling US-documents to Wikileaks), as well as Bill Clinton, Julia Timoschenko, Helmut Kohl and a lot more. It seems to be politically intended to have the nominees' names public, and whoever nominated Rawat has no reason to keep it a secret, neither has Wikipedia.--Rainer P. (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rawat was "interviewed" by 'Leaders Magazine' and this was similarly cited by premies as a reliable source. I rang the magazine to find out if it was for real. To my surprise, I was put through to the CEO who was highly irate and said that he was furious with the subordinate who'd accepted the so-called 'interview' which had in fact been pre-written by Rawat's publicity people - who'd paid for it to appear in the magazine as if it were a bona fide piece of editorial. He gave me the impression that it was an embarrassing breach/corruption of the magazine's code of ethics that would not happen again under his watch. What if it turns out this is the same sort of scam? Show me a single interview which isn't entirely flattering towards Rawat. One where the questions aren't couched in obsequious flattery. My guess is the interviewer is a follower or there was money involved. Nobody in the real world get's this kind of easy ride in real interviews. It's so fake. I was even talking to a follower last night who entirely agreed. He also pointed out that all the people in the audience at some political thing in Italy (he was watching a video on WPOG site) were pretty much all premies as far as he could see. Can you wonder that we have some skepticism about this all being responsible journalism? PatW (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Rainer, you say the host mentioned the Nobel prize, not Rawat. Do you think she knew about it, and he didn't? Where do you think she got that info? Do you really not understand why I showed you the fake bomb story, from the only name attached to that website, in terms of its credibility? Yes, it's true, that nominated parties can announce they were nominated, but that's a pretty exceptional claim, now you'd have to prove it from a reliable source, Rawat isn't one for this, do you have another? The idea that TPRF writes his interviews is actually a standard practice among many business types, it's not absurd at all. I can present you with 50 examples if you'd like, none of which would prove that this interview was scripted, but all would prove it's not absurd. "Whoever nominated Rawat" is not an RS source, obviously. At least, until they come forward and announce themselves as the nominators, and then we can look at their credentials. While what PatW has said above all falls under the WP:OR banner (dang, where's Momento when we need him!) if he was trying to introduce it into the article, as a general indicator, it's yet another example of how common paid interviews are. Have you not even seen those infomercials that look like talk shows? Who do you think pays for those? (Look up Kevin Trudeau, and Brokered programming). Also, I friends who are realtors, they pay 2,000.00 and they get a 5 page profile written up about them in "Success!" magazine, it looks legit, until you find out anyone can do it. Again, very common, the opposite of absurd. Or are you saying that it's only absurd for Rawat to do it? (In which case I have some follow-up questions for you). I wish that type of programming/advertising/interviewing was absurd, but at least in North America, it's common. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 22:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Maelefique, of course he knew, that's what I suppose. And I also suppose that the interview's course may have been in some way premeditated to give Rawat a maximum chance to bring over his own message, else he would not have granted it. The people who are qualified to nominate him have probably not done so behind his back, and maybe several people were involved, who knows. There seems to be no solid source for that, but there never is. Perhaps Rawat and Cecilia had it arranged so that she would ask the question, because it looks much better than he saying, BTW I have been nominated for the Noble Peace Prize - who knows. I would have done it like this. That does not make it a fake. I also suppose this is more or less common practice in news business. And I suppose, willax-tv had a lot of additional viewing rate by this interview, deducted from Google reactions and were not paid except by their advertisers. The Leaders interview was a different story. This here was on a stop in Lima, without much time for editing. Cecilia mentioned the previous Sao Paolo event. I did not have the impression that Cecilia was a follower of Rawat, but did a suitable professional job - that is, if you do not narrow yourself down to the obsessive presupposition that Rawat is a fraud and needs to get the mask torn from his fraudulent face. All that I find not absurd. It's absurd to believe that TPRF writes Rawat's video-interviews. And he himself does not have to pretend that he's Prem Rawat. So, o.k. if you play the advocatus diaboli, you do that well and we may have to work on this.--Rainer P. (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you've misunderstood my point. I don't think Rawat's claim that he is a Nobel nominee is fake. I believe that WP rules make it impossible to prove to WP's standards, and therefore is not usable. That's all. I don't know anything about the "Leaders" interview, this is the first I've heard of it. I don't think Rawat is a fraud either. I think he has changed his methods over the years, but doesn't want to talk about that. I think it's reasonable to believe that TPRF at the *very* least vets interview requests, and lays down what topics may and may not be talked about. I think it would be absurd not to think that, given his past, but that's only my opinion, and I'm not trying to convince anyone else of that. I thought Cecilia did a good job too, but I think the fact remains that the source for his nomination at this point is himself, and that's not RS. If we get a better source, I'll look at that too. Finally, I like the sound of that, the latin is much catchier than the basic "devil's advocate". -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 00:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's some history on the interviewer. Clearly not the sort that could be bought.Momento (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can anybody translate this? As far as i can understand it shakes her credibility a bit http://aeronoticias.com.pe/noticiero/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13511:con-escasa-credibilidad-cecilia-valenzuela-opina-sobre-la-lid-flores-villaran&catid=47&Itemid=201. Doesn,t mean that we should believe evrything in the papers but ......Surdas (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's put aside her credibility for a moment, because I'm not sure it's relevant. She's obviously not a source for saying he has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. Is there anything else that anyone would like to put into the article that this is a source for? I didn't see a lot of information in this interview, other than him talking about peace isn't the absence of war, etc. Is there a specific edit this is a source for? If we don't have that, we don't really need to discuss this interview at all. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 13:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Maelefique.  Sylviecyn (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Why can we not add a sentence like "In her periodic talkshow Mira Quién Habla („Look who’s talking”), award-winning journalist Cecilia Valenzuela from the Peruvian TV channel Willax TV interviewed Rawat and indicated his nomination for the Noble Peace Prize". It is allocatable, notable and verifiable. I don't see why it should be obvious that she can't be a source for that. Maybe there will never be a better source.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Three reasons:


 * 1) There will absolutely positively be a better source, in 50 years, when Nobel releases their list
 * 2) There could be a better source sooner if the nominator steps forward and is found to be RS for the claim
 * 3) It's an exceptional claim, she is not an exceptional source for it (which is needed per policy), I can see no reason why should would be RS for this claim
 * However, I'm totally in support of this exact question "Is this video (link here, at the 2:40 mark of the second video) a reliable source for the claim that Prem Rawat has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize?" posted at WP:RSN. If they say it's a reliable source, I will change my opinion on the RS status of this. --174.1.176.26 (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

O.k., we'll see in 50 years. Empirically nominators seem to not habitually step foreward. If the source was good enough for her to publicise the claim, and if she is valued as RS, what's the problem? But let's hear WP:RSN on the subject, thank you for your offer. Please give them the web-address http://sites.willax.tv/ceciliavalenzuela/ --Rainer P. (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

New Manual Of Style
John Carter introduced some suggestions for a new Manual Of Style for religious subjects, which I find constructive at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Prem_Rawat. Sample: ''Also, there is another question which will arise, particularly regarding some more recent sources. There have been times when sources which might otherwise be considered to generally meet RS standards are in fact rather sensationalist works which seem to have been at least in part been created for reasons other than purely academic ones.'' I think it could help our work here. Opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainer P. (talk • contribs) 11:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Although Carter's guidelines all make sense, the sentence you've singled out is, in my opinion, the least helpful of his comments. It doesn't really clarify anything. It's too general and an invitation for opposing sides to seize upon his 'guideline' eager to prove that the other's sources are 'too sensational'. I' would be interested to know what he thinks of this article. PatW (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Lima Interview and RSN, re: Nobel

 * Your link is the page that scrolls with new news, I've used http://sites.willax.tv/ceciliavalenzuela/entrevistas/prem-rawat-busquemos-la-paz-en-nuestro-interior/ instead, as it's a static link. RSN thread is here.

I understand that the RSN estimates the source as not qualified enough for this statement pretty cohesively, and I agree to drop the issue, unless better sources turn up.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A "Puff Piece" that "Lionizes" Rawat. Again, can anyone find an example of a reputable, current interview or article that doesn't fit this characterisation please? That would be very useful.PatW (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank-you Rainer, if better sources do turn up, I would definitely be willing to look at them.
 * PatW, I think that's going to be very hard to find, because almost any journalist that does any digging is going to want to talk about the 70-80's because it's controversial, and that gets views/sells papers. I don't think PR is ready to re-hash all that just yet. but *shrug* I guess we'll wait and see. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 14:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I wrote a whole load of thoughts that this conversation prompted - but I've deleted it. Sufficit to say I think Rawat's inability to answer questions that are anything less then obsequious flattery says a lot more than that he simply doesn't want to 're-hash' past controversies. PatW (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but right now, I'm still dealing with the God issue. Almost ready to go. Stay focused...on the edits/sources. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 18:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How's the "God Issue" coming along? I'd like to see some fresh input on this article. PatW (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

TRANSLATION REQUESTED above
Cecilia Valenzuela expresses her opinion on the fight Flores-Villarán, with scarce credibility.

Journalist Cecilia Valenzuela left a sad memory in Peruvian television, as she gave an epithet that we considered inopportune, after the opinions of “The Sniper” on the candidacy of Susan Villarán to the mayor's office of Lima.

In an interview with the Daily Mail, journalist Cecilia Valenzuela reiterated her position on the presence of Patria Roja in the municipal proposal of Susana Villarán with Fuerza Social; however, Valenzuela does not remember the interests that she defended when she was in Canal 2, her lack of objectivity and her low credibility in the journalistic Peruvian means, which have moved some readers to rate her as “the zero journalist”.

Jaime Bayli is criticized by “journalist zero”.

Cecilia Valenzuela branded her colleague Jaime Bayly as a “propagandist” of Susana Villarán: “There was a time in which he made fun of Raúl Tola calling him “de Carreño”. After this, I believe that we can call him Jaime Bayly of Villarán ”, she said. However, some readers have said that Cecilia would go for Ivcher, and for everyone in the Government on duty, that is to say, a picturesque person and nothing more.

Their declarations came after pointing out that Bayly showed an interview that Valenzuela did to Villarán “in a fractioned way and out of context” in The Sniper, to end up reinforcing the candidate's answers: “I did not think that (Villarán) needed translators”.

Aeronoticias considers that these statements by Cecilia Valenzuela have an adverse effect for Lourdes Flores, since coming from such a person “they benefit Susana Villarán”, the correct Lourdes Flores does not need this “friend”, and when she was in Frecuencia Latina, she was pathetic from the journalistic point of view. Cecilia Valenzuela's statements in her boring and hepatic programs were many times inappropriate and had an undeniable commercial aim, and now she wants to get some help which should not be welcome, as it comes from a journalist who does not deserve any credibility, in any case if she wanted to help Susan Villarán, she he has achieved it, Lourdes does not need that help, she will win because there is a consensus and unless there are last-minute surprises, Lourdes Flores will be the new mayoress of Lima".

- End of translation -.

I have seen the new paragraph on public speeches in international respected places or forums. Congratulations. Sorry if I am sometimes a bit hard judging the English version. It is still improving. The problem is that what anti and pro Prem editors consider improvement is exactly the opposite :-), but that makes the intellectual tennis here interesting :-) Best regards :-)--PremieLover (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Best regards! PatW (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

New TPRF release on the PEP
There's a new report on the activities of the Peace Education Programm, which is quite informative, including a video. It says there are 10 DVDs provided especially for this intent, and it seems to reflect some effort to standardize the undertaking, maybe covering some unanswered questions we encountered here before. See it at http://tprf.org/en/programs/peace-education-program. TPRF seem to be offering their PEP internationally.--Rainer P. (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight in lead
Just looking at the lead with fresh eyes and noticed how unbalanced it is.

It contains two references to Rawat's "divinity" when one is enough.

1. many saw him as an incarnation of the divine.

2. ridiculed in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status.

Four criticisms.

1. described as a cult.

2. ridiculed in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status.

3. Journalists noting luxury automobiles and multiple residences

4. criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses (others were impressed)

And yet not one mention of his followers as described in the article

1. Many were attracted by the sense of joy, peace and commitment shown by Rawat's followers

2. Love flowed back and forth between him and his devotees

3. The premies were described as "cheerful, friendly and unruffled" and seeming "nourished by their faith".

4. To the 400 premie parents who attended, Rawat was "a rehabilitator of prodigal sons and daughters"

Momento (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Non-WP concerns have kept me less active here recently, but I am still planning to go ahead with the recommended arbcom request (best guess, this weekend sometime I will get to it) regarding where we ended off with the DRN process. I suspect that when that's all done, the lead will, if anything, prove to be too little weight, instead of too much as you suggest. However, if I read what you're saying correctly, you'd like to re-write the lead, please post your suggested edits here for discussion first, as per our usual process. thanks. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 10:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

In the interests of brevity I think the easiest way is to amalgamate the two "divine" comments in a NPOV way and reduce the "negative" from four items to the two, the ridicule in the media and that DLM was a cult and then it won't be necessary to add some balancing "positives" about his followers. Therefore,

"At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru (lit. Perfect Master) to millions of Indian followers. Rawat gained further prominence when he traveled to the West at age 13 to spread his message. His claimed ability to impart direct knowledge of God attracted a great deal of interest from young adults but he was ridiculed by the media for his youth and his supposed divine status. Under his charismatic leadership, the Divine Light Mission (DLM) became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West, though it was sometimes described as a cult". Momento (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I only have a problem with the removal of the divinity aspect, as that is what the most recent discussions are about, and if the arbcom discussions result in any changes, that mention would have to go right back in anyway. Removing that point would seem to lessen it's impact, rather than show what a large part of his "mystique" was at the time, and that doesn't seem like the correct direction to be moving in, I'm waiting to see what other think as well here. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 15:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think, Momento's suggestion is more concise and coherent than the current version, as it contains less debris from battles past. Looks to me like an improvement in neutrality.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are no ARB:COM discussions pending. That was just a threat made by MED:COM when I exposed their performance. The LEAD has to reflect the article and it currently doesn't where as my proposal does.Momento (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My proposal contains the following words, in just two paragraphs, which all reflect on Rawat's "mystique" (in order) -Maharaji, Guru Maharaji, Divine, Satguru, Perfect Master, followers, God, divine, charismatic, Divine, religious, cult. You can hardly say it's not adequately covered.Momento (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Still I miss reference to more modern developements, as are covered in the article.--Rainer P. (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This proposal only covers the first two paragraphs of the LEAD that brings us up to Rawat turning 16.Momento (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, if I wasn't clear, as MEDCOM hasn't had the time to pursue the matter further, and we haven't had a resolution to the question, it was suggested to me, and I agree that, I should bring the matter to ARBCOM myself, rather than wait. Which is what I am planning to do (unfortunately, life elsewhere has kept me busier than I had expected recently). It wasn't a threat or anything that I was making, I believe I've made it clear before that I intended to follow through with the discussion, I was only re-iterating that point. And again, the only big problem I have with your re-write of the lead is the removal of the part that mentions him being seen by many as Divine. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 20:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is adequately covered by "his supposed divine status". Why would the lead need to say it twice.Momento (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because of the context, the first time it's mentioned it states that many people saw him as divine, the second time is only a reference to one of the reassons the press ridiculed him, that's completely different context. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 05:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If we wanted to put that "many people saw him as divine" to be balanced we would have to add the qualifiers that go with that statement in the article - "A reporter ... wrote that Rawat appeared humble and human, and seemed to intentionally undercut the claims of divinity made by followers. Sociologist James Downton said that from his beginnings Rawat appealed to his followers to give up concepts and beliefs that might impede them from fully experiencing the Knowledge (or life force), but this did not prevent them from adopting a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity, and to project millennial preconceptions onto him and the movement." To put "many people saw him as divine" without the qualifiers that appears in the article is a clear breach of NPOV. The media statement, whoever, stands on its own and give a valuable insight as to how Rawat was presented to the world by the media. Momento (talk) 06:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "If we wanted to put that "many people saw him as divine" to be balanced we would have to add the qualifiers that go with that statement in the article", which is exactly what the upcoming arbcom discussion is about, as you know. However, if I don't have the time in the next week to get that ball rolling, then I'll retract my objection to that, and we can re-insert it again later if the arbcom decision falls that way. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 05:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is just another attempt to whitewash the article. My opinion is that the lead is okay the way it is and no edits ought be made to it without another arbcom.   Sylviecyn (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You may see this article as a "puff piece" and any attempt to improve it as "another attempt to white wash" it but editing has always been based on accurately and neutrally reporting available sources. And the lead should reflect that which is why it needs to be changed. Apart from the obvious improvement in readability.Momento (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What an improvement, short, sharp and to the point. The third paragraph ends with this sentence - "The Divine Light Mission was disbanded in the West in the early 1980s, succeeded by the organizations Elan Vital (1983) and The Prem Rawat Foundation (2001)". Why, you may ask, do we have a sentence about organisations in the lead of a biography about Prem Rawat? Surely it should be noting what PR was doing between 1980 and 2001 not what some temporary tool was doing. Momento (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that you think it's an improvement, otherwise you wouldn't have suggested it. However, you don't have consensus for this change yet -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 20:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sylviecyn's comment isn't part of a consensus discussion - it comes under the heading of Tendentious Editing... Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on. Sylviecyn's comments that this is a "puff piece" and any attempt to improve it as "another attempt to white wash" amply indicate a lack of Good Faith. Suggesting that we need to get approval before any changes is catering to WP:OWN. Reverting to cater to WP:OWN is inappropriate to say the least. The proposal significantly benefits the article and that should be the main criteria for inclusion not WP:OWN.Momento (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I wasn't referring to Sylvie's comments. I understand that you think it's an improvement. I don't agree, for the reasons mentioned above. We know there are several other editors that watch this article, so there should be more opinions trickling in. Jumping the gun and making changes because you think it's better (even when I explained why I didn't think it was) is where I see WP:OWN coming into this discussion. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 06:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Three editors discuss the proposal and the reasons for it and agree to the change; another editor then says the article is a "puff piece", "another attempt to whitewash" and "no edits ought be made to it without another arbcom", The first three editors are following Wiki editing procedure, the fourth is indulging in bad faith, lack of civility and tendentious editing. Let's leave it 24 hours and see if anyone has any real objections.Momento (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being glib, but I do agree with Maelefique that, because your proposal concerns another issue of divinity which is a contentious issue in this article, concensus must be obtained before an edit is made. Concensus was not reached before you made your edit (which was reverted rightly so).   It doesn't matter to me what you think of me or my comments -- you make snarky comments to and about me all of the time here -- yet, if you don't accept my edits here in good faith, that's problem enough to throw this article into arbcom 3.  Have a good weekend!  Sylviecyn (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I incorrectly assumed that Maelefique's comment " However, if I don't have the time in the next week to get that ball rolling, then I'll retract my objection to that" was referring to my proposal and that we could put it in awaiting an Arbcom decision. I can't see how Arbcom is going to be interested in a "divinity" discussion.Momento (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * When are you going to make your Arbcom request and what are you going to ask?Momento (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph three

 * I don't imagine there will be any objections to replacing the last sentence in Lead paragraph three - "The Divine Light Mission was disbanded in the West in the early 1980s, succeeded by the organizations Elan Vital (1983) and The Prem Rawat Foundation (2001)" with a sentence or two that describes what PR has been doing since he "retained control of the movement outside India" in the early 80's. After all this article is about PR not organisations. Something like - "As his following increased through the 80s and 90s Rawat toured extensively, piloting a jet around 250,000 miles a year. His message is available in eighty-eight countries and his program "Words of Peace" is broadcast on TV channels around the world".Momento (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Did anybody say anything about a whitewash? Surdas (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are no objections I will replace the sentence as per the proposal.Momento (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I object (on holiday and internet is intermittent so cannot fully explain. Please wait and don't edit yet!!PatW (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking forward to your objection Pat.Momento (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I’ve been away for vacation and I will try to keep following the action on this page and see if I can understand what is happening. Routine-blindness does no good. We can't help but forget how the article appeals to a neutral reader. Let me say, I am delighted and amused by the exquisite courteousness that now characterizes, well, most contributions, it gives me hope. I think we can profit from a little distance to all this editing business every now and then. Perhaps I can relate to part of some editors’ uneasiness with Momento’s proposal. My own impression was, that somehow the ring of the sentences comes, as my dictionary says, a little bit striking, perhaps lacking in enzyclopedic distance. But I agree completely with what is said as regards content. Anybody know what I mean? A matter of style. Just as it strikes me reading in Wikipedia about teenage Rawat's ulcer and such. The article appears to me like my home town in Germany few years after the war. When the dust has settled and the smoke has cleared, there is still an odour in the air, and duds are found every day, but you can start to assess the damage and get to work.--Rainer P. (talk) 06:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is an appropriate reason to delay changing the last sentence in Lead paragraph three. According to Wikipedia MOS the Lead should be a concise overview of the article and the vast majority of the 1983 -2000s section contains info about his following, his travelling, his use of media and awards and charitable work. The info about DLM becoming EV, establishing TPRF account for less than 5% of the content. Momento (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps make a proposal that sums it up in a more neutral style than above version? An unbiased reader should not be able to tell it's been formulated by a supporter or a critic.--Rainer P. (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "As his following increased through the 80s and 90s Rawat toured extensively, piloting a jet around 250,000 miles a year. His message is available in eighty-eight countries and his program "Words of Peace" is broadcast on TV channels around the world". These two sentences sum up the !983+ period far better than the current sentence. As WP:CON says "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale".Momento (talk) 10:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Momento, what are your sources for the additional information about Rawat "piloting a jet around 250,000 miles a year" other than the organizations' websites? I really object to your changing the lede paragraph without properly sourcing them. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The info about "piloting a jet around 250,000 miles a year" is properly sourced as is clear from the article. So your objection to the proposal is baseless, as is your claim that I am "changing the lede paragraph without properly sourcing". As the sign above says "Any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivilty. Momento (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but I didn't notice the Geaves source. I believe that Geaves, being a decades-long follower of Rawat, should not be treated with as much weight as other sources, such as journalists and scholar of NRMs. I'll also remind you that discussions about fellow editors on an article talk page is also against the rules.  I'm just trying to understand your need to make changes so quickly when the article has been stable for so long.  It's clear we both have conflicts of interest so I don't see your pov carrying more weight here than mine. I've declared that here and you haven't.  My conflict of interest is something that caused me to decide not to edit the article proper.  Please stop making comments about me here.  Sylviecyn (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, i couldn't find a 250,000 miles a year in the article. What do you mean with "clear from the article"?Surdas (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It does say somewhere "a quarter of a million miles" alright, based on a Geaves paper. Still I feel that the plain number is an information too particular for a summary, sounds too much like promotional blurb, even when it's true. "Extensively" or something to this effect would do properly, I think. The same goes for the "88 countries" and "TV-channels around the world". In a summary, that ought to be summed in a way, too. Maybe something like "large number" and "receivable worldwide"?--Rainer P. (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good points Rainer. Looking at the paragraph as a whole, how about -

When Rawat turned sixteen he took control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement. His marriage to an American in 1974 prompted a split with his mother and the Indian DLM but he retained control of the international movement, later abandoning the religious aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable. As his following increased in the 80s and 90s Rawat began touring extensively. His message and the TV program "Words of Peace" are now available throughout the world.

It contains all the important info and reduces the para from 98 words to 86. Momento (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair and neutral to me.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Rainer. Just thought that "marriage to a non-Indian" is more informative than "American". So -

When Rawat turned sixteen he took control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement. His marriage to a non Indian in 1974 prompted a split with his mother and the Indian DLM but he retained control of the international movement, later abandoning the religious aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable. As his following increased in the 80s and 90s Rawat began touring extensively. His message and the TV program "Words of Peace" are now available throughout the world.

Also thinking that we probably don't need all the cites in the Lead. They're available in the article and it makes it easier to read without them. Momento (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with leaving the cites out of the lead, but I'm a little confused how "non-Indian" is a more informative word than "American", I see the opposite as being true. Also I find that your revised version of that time plays down the family and the DLM splits. His TV program may be viewed in many countries, but that is not the same as "around the world", which tends to imply it is everywhere, it isn't (last stat we have is that it's available in 88 countries, there are 196-ish on the planet). We also have no information on "his message" being available throughout the world, where did that come from? And are you considering dropping the rest of the DLM/Elan Vital/TPRF info from the lead? If so, we should consider dropping their work from the article as well, I don't think you want to do that. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 02:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article says "non-Indian" so we should go with that. It would be more accurate to mention the "split" before the marriage since Mata Ji and Satpal had already gone back to India. DLM/Elan Vital/TPRF evolution must be in the article but doesn't need to be in the lead. The message available all over the world is a consequence of the internet and is easier to express than 88 countries as at 2006. Suggestions welcome.Momento (talk) 06:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC).
 * I agree with Momento there. "American" would imply, that had she been European or Australian, there would have been no problem, which is unconfirmed. Rawats message is globally available on the internet, which is explicitely named world-wide-web, mainly through Words of Peace. And I agree with Maelefique, that the DLM/Elan VItal/TPRF-sequence is historically notable enough to be mentioned in the lead section. Maybe we can bring these issues in relation to each other, the name changes orchestrating significant developments in Rawat's work?--Rainer P. (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We have many references for her being American, the source is not a problem there. Do we have some reason to believe that if she was Indian but from the west, that Mom would have been ok with that? It's my understanding that not just any Indian would have been ok either. If we have some kind of references that makes that more clear we should use that, otherwise, I think we should use the most accurate references we have. Non-indian could mean she's Japanese, she's not, and we don't know if ethnicity, or religious belief, or something else was at the heart of her decision. Although I strongly suspect that the non-indian aspect plays a major role (along with the fact that she wasn't asked for approval of her/got to pick her). It may even have been more culturally based, ie, an American living in India for the previous 20 years may have been just fine. We don't know. We do know that Marolyn was an American, and not of Indian descent.
 * You say above that they had already gone back to India, but your suggested edit says "His marriage to a non Indian in 1974 prompted a split with his mother and the Indian DLM" that seems to contradict the chronology, did we want to alter that too now? And I'm not sure that going back to India is the breaking point, they were back there yes, but is that relevant, or were they just back there because the DLM needed them there for something else, or they were just visiting home, or she was unhappy with PR and was taking a little break? Again, I don't know that, but I do know the sources say it was his marriage that did the whole camel/straw/back thing.
 * Being available on the internet is crossing back into puffery, my personal homepage is also on the internet, does that mean I have a "message available across the planet" that is notable? No, anything on the internet does not get "notable" status for being there. If you have some stats for numbers of hits on the keys websites or something, that might be notable, but still probably too in-depth for the lead. Imo being broadcast in 88 countries is much more of an achievement than putting up a website, but if you want to go with that, then I think we need to add "is available worldwide, via the internet" for clarity.
 * And since, as far as I can tell, none of PR's work is done now without the TPRF foundation (or the other one that just replaced EV, WOPI?) you cannot keep the things completely separated out. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 16:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, non-Indian is what the article says. It says also, she was from San Diego, but it would sound a little weird to say, Mom dismissed the girl because she was from San Diego. So, non-Indian may be ok as at least it represents the text. But I understand your point. I also see your point about the difference between an internet homepage and having a program on the air in a large number of countries (though I am not convinced that people pay money for being able to listen to you on the internet). And I think, most sources agree that the marriage was the final drop for the family rift. And I think, the changing of organisations is notable. With so much agreement, let's try and find words for this we also can agree on.--Rainer P. (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Mata Ji wanted him the marry to girl she had selected but the split had already occurred, the marriage was the final straw rather than the cause. WoP is telecast from 34 countries in Africa, Europe, North and South America, Asia, Australia/New Zealand/Fiji but how do you say it? Perhaps -

"When Rawat turned sixteen he took control of the international organisation (and married a non-Indian) which precipitated a split from his mother who retained control of DLM in India. He later abandoned the religious aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable and replaced DLM with Elan Vital. His following increased in the 80s and 90s with Rawat touring extensively. In 2001 he established "The Prem Rawat Foundation" to fund his work and humanitarian efforts and his message is now distributed in more than 88 countries. The TV series "Words of Peace" is transmitted via satellite and cable in six continents".

Momento (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No mentioning of the wedding?--Rainer P. (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've put it in (above in brackets) to see how it would fit. The media caught up to the split when PR married, it is interesting but more a media beat up and a personal milestone for PR than a significant step in his encyclopaedic journey. Let's see what Maelefique says, if he wants it we can remove the brackets.Momento (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So this looks like taking control of the organisation caused the split, which is not what the text says. Especially when taking the marriage into brackets. Looks like twisting the truth for me. I'd prefer to leave it as it was than making such changes. Surdas (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is true. I don't think the truth is twisted, but we cannot state allegations or conclusions in the lead that have no real counterpart in the article.--Rainer P. (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article says - "Because of Prem Rawat's youth, his mother, Mata Ji, and eldest brother, Satpal, managed the affairs of the worldwide DLM. When Rawat reached sixteen years of age he wanted to take a more active part in guiding the movement. According to the sociologist James V. Downton, this meant he "had to encroach on his mother's territory and, given the fact that she was accustomed to having control, a fight was inevitable". In December 1973, Rawat took administrative control of the Mission's US branch, and his mother and Satpal returned to India." Followed by "Rawat's marriage to a non-Indian finally severed his relationship with his mother". The proposal covers that info.Momento (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I overlooked that paragraph. You are right.--Rainer P. (talk) 04:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It still says that the marriage severed the relationship and not the taking control. Your sentence above changes the picture Surdas (talk) 05:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It says "finally", indicating that there had been a process of erosion before, that had nothing to do with the marriage.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is clearer but longer  - "When Rawat turned sixteen he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement. The following May he married against his mother's wishes, which prompted her to disown him and appoint his eldest brother as head of the Indian DLM. Rawat retained control of the movement outside India and abandoned the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable, replacing Divine Light Mission with Elan Vital. As his following increased in the 80s and 90s Rawat toured almost constantly. In 2001 he established "The Prem Rawat Foundation" to fund his work and humanitarian efforts and his message is now distributed in more than 88 countries. The TV series "Words of Peace" is transmitted via satellite and cable in six continents".  Momento (talk) 11:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wasn't it a court sentence that actually did the split? Mata Ji tried to install Sat Pal as Perfect Master for all of the DLM, or did Rawat try to control all of the DLM until it came to court?. Surdas (talk) 08:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The word "split" doesn't appear in the article nor does it appear in the proposal. What does appear in the article and in the proposal is - "Rawat's marriage to a non-Indian prompted his mother to disown him and appoint his eldest brother as head of the Indian DLM. Rawat retained control of the movement outside India". Any more comments.
 * I've taken the "non Indian" bit out. Mata Ji said she removed Rawat for "lack of respect for her wishes".Momento (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * .....and leading the lifestyle of a playboy. It should be more precise Surdas (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is that mentioned in the article?--Rainer P. (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * well it is just summed up as "unspiritual", but why limiting the case to a mother that is just angry about her child for not obeying her. The unspiritual behaviour has more weight than the wishes in my opinion. It can be sourced from a New York Times article and it may be should, because there seem to be some unclear views about that Surdas (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is certainly a very interesting detail, his mother rating Rawat's degree of spirituality. But I don't think it needs more space in the lead, unless it had more space in the article. I don't think it needs more space, as there are copious links to scientific literature, where the rather complicated affair may be appraised with enough precision.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Lead can't contain everything in the article. The proposal is now more faithful to the article, reads better and includes the necessary material from 1983 on. Unless there are any objections I will make the change.Momento (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What you don't seem to get is how incredibly unhealthy it is for Rawat supporters to swarm around this article deciding amongst themselves how it should 'read better'. It's a recipe for a totally biased article. Even I as a passionate critic of Rawat would refrain from this kind of partisan group think. You don't seem to realise how your discussions reek of being unable to resist the temptation to assert a POV despite your best efforts  to flatter yourselves you are capable as the next man of neutrality. Isn't everyone in this conversation a Rawat supporter apart from Maelefique who probably thinks you know better than he on these matters? A fact you seem to happily exploit. PatW (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion to wait a month until further edits are made
As a courtesy to editors on this article who are on vacation or otherwise busy this summer, I suggest that all edits be put on a (very) short, voluntary hold until, say September. That way we can have more relaxed and congenial discussions about proposals. I request that others also oblige. Please indicate below if you agree. Thanks! Sylviecyn (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

-- Agree. Sylviecyn (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't agree. It should only takes a minute to realise that we should "replace the last sentence in Lead paragraph three - "The Divine Light Mission was disbanded in the West in the early 1980s, succeeded by the organizations Elan Vital (1983) and The Prem Rawat Foundation (2001)" with a sentence or two that describes what PR has been doing since he "retained control of the movement outside India" in the early 80's. After all this article is about PR not organisations." If you can't see that now I doubt that you'll be able to see it in September.Momento (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is indeed so little semblance between the original DLM and today's TPRF, that just stating a succession of organisation names seems insufficient or even misleading to me. It may be historically notable, but needs to be complemented with information about the corresponding changes, based on the article. I don't see a need for hurry nor for a moratorium.--Rainer P. (talk) 04:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Strong objections to edit of lede
The paragraph Momento changed in the lede doesn't accurately reflect the article nor does his current proposal. I'm highly tempted to revert the edit because concensus was not achieved prior to this edit, and it appears that Momento is displaying single editor ownership OWN of this article, by railroading fellow editors, ignoring editor's objections, and by calling me names on this talk page in a threatening manner. Momento is not assuming good faith of editors. He refuses to discuss his proposals with others by insisting that his proposals are the only accurate and proper changes that can be possibly made, and by ignoring concerns of other editors that no changes in the lede need to be made.

Here's but one example of why Momento's edit does not accurately reflect 1) the article; and 2) the actual facts of this biography:

Momento's edit to the lede, paragraph 3:

''"When Rawat turned sixteen he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement. The following May he married against his mother's wishes, which prompted her to disown him and appoint his eldest brother as head of the Indian DLM. Rawat retained control of the movement outside India and abandoned the religious aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable, replacing Divine Light Mission with Elan Vital. As his following increased in the 80s and 90s Rawat toured almost constantly. In 2001 he established "The Prem Rawat Foundation" to fund his work and humanitarian efforts and his message is now distributed in more than 88 countries. The TV series "Words of Peace" is transmitted via satellite and cable in six continents". ''

Section 1974-1983, paragraph 5

"His appearance on 20 December 1976 in Atlantic City, New Jersey, wearing a traditional Krishna costume for the first time since 1975, signaled a resurgence of Indian influence and devotion. During 1977, many returned to ashram life, and there was a shift back from secular tendencies towards ritual and messianic beliefs."

The above quote from the article is a fact. Momento is ignoring the fact that there was a huge resurgence, in all of the western countries, of devotion to Prem Rawat's divinity which he restarted in 1976, complete with all of the Hindu trappings, and this resurgence lasted until at least 1981. Those are the facts of this biography. Prem Rawat introduced his own divinity and demand for devotion in his NRM (New Religious Movement) when he first came to western countries. The fact is that those Indian trappings and religious rituals were present throughout the entire 1970s with the exception of the first 10 or 11 months of 1976. Following that Atlantic City program in December 1976, where Prem Rawat danced on the stage in a full Krishna costume with crown (I was there), there was an enormous resurgence of devotees' worship of Prem Rawat, which was fully encouraged by him and included a return to ashram life by many devotees. This is evidenced by the the 1979 through early 1981 DECA project in Hialeah, Florida (near Miami Beach) to completely reconfigure a B707 jet into a luxury executive jet. I was at the DECA project and everyone there worshipped Guru Maharaj Ji as their Lord of the Universe in a messianic manner.

Momento's edit to paragraph 3 absolutely does not accurately reflect the article and the factual biography of Prem Rawat, whether or not he believes that it gives proper "positive weight." Furthermore, Momento removed all of the citations that were in the previous lede paragraph 3 version!! This is outrageous editing, imo. I strongly object to Momento's edit, as well as his new proposal to edit paragraph 2. I ask that Momento self-revert because the current paragraph 3 does not reflect what the article states. I do not want to escalate using edit warring. Let's go back and redo this properly with concensus, assuming good faith. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The LEAD sentence SylvieCyn objects to is a summary of the time period from 1974 to 1983 described in the article by over 600 words. The events contained in the LEAD sentence - Rawat retaining control of DLM in the west after the split, his abandoning of the religious aspects and the replacing of DLM with EV - are the most important events of that period. I made a proposal, including removing the cites from the LEAD because they are in the article, made changes according to other editors suggestions, gave notice of the change and waited 24 hours before inserting it.Momento (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is all in your opinion and not based in the reality of Prem Rawat's life. Congratulations, you're now the owner of this article.    Sylviecyn (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Rawat retaining control of DLM in the west after the split, his abandoning of the religious aspects and the replacing of DLM with EV - are the most important events of that period, only for a current follower who is following the party line. This is complete POV editing. Surdas (talk) 07:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. An editor cannot determine content or its weight based on this kind of statement which is clearly an opinion. I don't want to get involved in this article and know nothing about the subject but saw this POV comment. (I was familiar with the arbitrations on this article) I'd suggest a self revert and more discussion, and if that doesn't bring some kind of agreement bring in more outside opinions, perhaps think about an RfC, or try  a NB where the community at large can weigh in.(olive (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC))
 * Agreed. What is a NB?--Rainer P. (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Notice Board.(olive (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC))
 * My proposal and edit made two changes (in bold) to the long standing 74-83 sentence which was has been stable for years - "Rawat retained control of the movement outside India and later abandoned the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable". I removed "later" and corrected "Indian" with "religious" as per the article. I have re-inserted "later". In future, please give your content input when changes are being proposed rather than remaining silent until the changes are made and then complaining.Momento (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Its a good idea to take part in discussion if the concern is the content and its source. I agree completely. Some editors here are suggesting that opinion can never be a motivating factor for how that content is chosen and worded in the article. I was drawn in by that concern. I'll leave you to it.(olive (talk) 03:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC))

Orphaned references in Prem Rawat
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Prem Rawat's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Melton1986": From Teachings of Prem Rawat: Melton, J. Gordon The Encyclopedia Handbook of Cults in America. p.143, Garland Publishing (1986) ISBN 0-8240-9036-5 "The Divine Light Mission is derived from Sant Mat (literally, the way of the saints), a variation of the Sikh religion which draws significant elements from Hinduism. It is based upon a succession of spiritual masters generally believed to begin with Tulsi Sahib, an early nineteenth century guru who lived at Hathrash, Uttar Pradesh. It is believed that the person mentioned as Sarupanand Ji in Mission literature is in fact Sawan Singh, a prominent Sant Mat guru. In any case, Hans Maharaj Ji claimed a Sant Mat succession which he passed to Maharaj Ji. Maharaj Ji, as do many of the other Sant Mat leaders, claims to be a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God on earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration." From Bibliography of Prem Rawat and related organizations: Melton, J. Gordon. Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America. New York/London: Garland, 1986 (revised edition), ISBN 0-8240-9036-5, pp. 141-145. 

Reference named "ReferenceB": From Margaret Singer: San Francisco Chronicle, Tuesday November 25, 2003 From 2010 Sahel famine: ACT Preliminary Appeal: Food insecurity in Mauritania due to Drought in the Sahel region AlertNet From Meditation: Ahimsa - The Science Of Peace:'' by Surendra Bothra 1987 From List of new religious movements: Beit-Hallahmi 1993, p. 7. 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Repaired some of the "orphaned refs".Momento (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead paragraph two
As already discussed, paragraph two does not faithfully reflect the balance achieved in the article. It contains two references to Rawat's "divinity" when one is enough. 1. many saw him as an incarnation of the divine. 2. ridiculed in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status. THree criticisms. 1. described as a cult. 2. ridiculed in the US for his youth and his supposed divine status. 3. Journalists noting luxury automobiles and multiple residences And yet not one mention of his followers as described in the article 1. Many were attracted by the sense of joy, peace and commitment shown by Rawat's followers 2. Love flowed back and forth between him and his devotees 3. The premies were described as "cheerful, friendly and unruffled" and seeming "nourished by their faith". 4. To the 400 premie parents who attended, Rawat was "a rehabilitator of prodigal sons and daughters"

The following proposal addresses that imbalance and still has gives a great deal of prominence to Rawat's "mystique" (in order) -Maharaji, Guru Maharaji, Divine, Satguru, Perfect Master, followers, God, divine, charismatic, Divine, religious, cult. You can hardly say it's not adequately covered.

"At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru (lit. Perfect Master) to millions of Indian followers. Rawat gained further prominence when he traveled to the West at age 13 to spread his message. His claimed ability to impart direct knowledge of God attracted a great deal of interest from young adults but he was ridiculed by the media for his youth and his supposed divine status. Under his charismatic leadership, the Divine Light Mission (DLM) became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West, though it was sometimes described as a cult"

Let's se if we can make this right as we have done with para three. Momento (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

PatW (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)What YOU think is 'right' is to remove any negative tone (implied from the original sources) and to replace it with you and your Rawat supporter friends preferred re-write. This is all ugly, inexorable revisionism in my opinion. The repeated mentioning of Rawat's divinity claims is TOTALLY justified by contemporary sources, as are probably all the other 'imbalances' you seek to 'correct'. I don't care if this sounds like I don't have faith in your intentions. I think your mission here is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. And your self-confidence that you are 'making things right' is thinly disguised mocking of people who have frankly tired of resisting your highly biased editing spree. Do as you like. I'm just hoping someone, somewhere will take a look at your dodgy history here and put a stop to this retrograde behaviour.PatW (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Lead is supposed to summarise the article, in this case the years from 1966 to 1973. Two sentences get Rawat from India to the US. One sentence covers how well his message was received by some and ridiculed by others. The second covers how quickly DLM took off and how some saw it as a cult. The major issues evenly covered.Momento (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Any objections as to the content of the proposal?Momento (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I have an objection. The claim "The Divine Light Mission (DLM) became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West" does not appear in the article. Therefore suggest -

"At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru (lit. Perfect Master) to millions of Indian followers. Rawat gained further prominence when he traveled to the West at age 13 to spread his message. His claimed ability to impart direct knowledge of God attracted a great deal of interest from young adults but he was ridiculed by the media for his youth and his supposed divine status. Under his charismatic leadership, the DLM was active in 55 countries by the end of 1973 although it was sometimes described as a cult". Momento (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why "although" and not just "and"? I see no contradiction.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a hold over from the current sentence which talks of DLM as being a NRM. But maybe there is another way to introduce "cult". Suggestions?Momento (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe: "... by the end of 1973. It was sometimes described as a cult."--Rainer P. (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ooops. There is no mention of "although it was sometimes described as a cult" in the article.Momento (talk) 01:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is: Rawat has often been termed a cult leader in popular press reports,[114][115] as well as anti-cult writings.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I should have been more specific. Not mentioned in the section we're discussing 1966-1973.Momento (talk) 09:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the "Media" section I have removed - "Rawat's last known press conferences was in 1973" - because its source is from 1976 and therefore cannot be a source for what has happened after 1976. And the editorial OR "often been termed a cult leader" is not supported by the sources, nor are Christian extremists suitable sources for "anti-cult" writings.Momento (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I remember this thing having been discussed lengthily a while ago. What happened to it?--Rainer P. (talk) 10:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What thing?Momento (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The cult thing. Must have been in the Will Beback era.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A "cult" is what religious fanatics call non-believers.Momento (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Proposal so far -

"At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru (lit. Perfect Master) to millions of Indian followers. Rawat gained further prominence when he traveled to the West at age 13 to spread his message. His claimed ability to impart direct knowledge of God attracted a great deal of interest from young adults but he was ridiculed by the media for his youth and his supposed divine status. By the end of 1973 the DLM was active in 55 countries and tens of thousands of followers has been initiated".

Comments on content please.Momento (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Administrator note: I don't honestly care all that much how the above discussion turns out (I do have an opinion, but it's not sufficiently strong that I really want to get involved), but everyone, especially you PatW, needs to cool it. I get that each "side" here is frustrated with the other, but it's not that hard to review what you're saying and remove the invective from your post before hitting the save button. Besides, you're far more likely to get what you're looking for if you can express some collegiality; it makes other people more willing to work with you as opposed to working against you. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 16:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

So the proposal is -

""At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru (lit. Perfect Master) to millions of Indian followers. Rawat gained further prominence when he traveled to the West at age 13 to spread his message. His claimed ability to impart direct knowledge of God attracted a great deal of interest from young adults but he was ridiculed by the media for his youth and his supposed divine status. By the end of 1973 the DLM was active in 55 countries and tens of thousands of followers had been initiated".

I will make the change in 24 hours. Thanks.Momento (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed as per above, thank you.Momento (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead paragraph three
I cannot really find an item in the article that the lack of intellectual content in his public discourses refers to. It seems like a rather exceptional and unnecessary statement to me and, if mentioned at all, should be well sourced, and, at least well balanced by mentioning the overwhelmingly multitudinous distinctions.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article does say "Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses" in the "Teaching" section based on the opinion of two sources. Kent who continues that while he "found Rawat's message to be banal and poorly delivered, his companions spoke about it glowingly" and Dutch sociologist Paul Schnabel who described Rawat as "a pure example of a charismatic leader". The main problem of course is Rawat offers an experience not an intellectual theory. It's rather like criticising a musician for not being an athlete. In the "Teachings of Prem Rawat" article, Hummel explains " His teachings were rich in metaphor and more concerned with practical applications than theory". Price says "He sees conceptual thinking as the main enemy of the direct religious experience which he claims can be obtained through the techniques of Knowledge". A reporter said "He spoke humbly, conversationally". And Geaves "Rawat speaks spontaneously, with an emphasis on an individual's subjective experience rather than on a body of theoretical knowledge, and he draws upon real life experiences, including his own, rather than on interpretations of the scriptures".Momento (talk) 11:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I had overlooked it. Still I think it is not discriptive for his teachings, but for his simple style, and therefore belongs rather into Leadership and Charisma. And unmediated in the lead it appears somewhat misleading. Opinions?--Rainer P. (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Media section

 * This section is redundant. The only thing of value is - "In an interview in Der Spiegel in 1973, Rawat said, "I have lost confidence in newspapers. I talk with them [about this] and the next day something completely different is printed." which could go in the 1966 to 1973 section. The sentence about "the Divine Light Mission's 50-member public relations team" refers to a meeting at Millenium and is included to make it look as if Rawat had a "50-member public relations team"! DLM was active in 55 countries so that represents one representative from each country at a meeting at an international event of 20,000 people. The "often been termed a cult leader in popular press reports,[113][114]" is not supported by the sources cited and "anti-cult writings" are by an exorcist and a fundamental Christian, hardly a neutral source. I think it should be removed.Momento (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think Geaves is a neutral source either. As a compromise we can delete all references of both of them. What do you think? Surdas (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In my understanding, A source needs not necessarily be neutral, but reliable and competent. An encyclopedia must be neutral.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Bob Larson exorcises evil spirits over the radio and write books about rock music and Satanism, written from a Christian perspective. Ron Rhodes is a Christian fundamentalist who believes Catholicism is a cult. Therefore every non Christian religious organisation is a cult or worse to these authors. They are not suitable sources for this article.Momento (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed before a long time ago. What you are doing right now is following jossi's line. I don't think this should be a further issue. Read the archives. Surdas (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If the article has evolved since then, which it obviously has, this must also legitimately reflect in the lead section.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This article has some obvious errors that should be fixed. You can't use Larson and Rhodes as authorities on cults. Just like you can't use people like Larson as an authority on the Rolling Stones (you're bound to be able to find someone that says RS music is an evil vomit that has caused many innocent children to commit suicide) or Rhodes on the Pope. Their extreme views on others are irrelevant to a credible encyclopedia.Momento (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So you deleted the cult sentence out of the lede already? I think what you are pursuing is indeed a white wash. I strictly oppose the way that you are proceeding in the article.Surdas (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was happy to have "Under his charismatic leadership, the Divine Light Mission (DLM) became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West, though it was sometimes described as a cult" until I discovered that "the DLM became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West" didn't exist in the article. So then I went with "Under his charismatic leadership, the DLM was active in 55 countries by the end of 1973 although it was sometimes described as a cult" until I discovered that the source for "cult" was Larson and Rhodes, two Christian extremist and two newspaper articles over 40 years. And then I found that there wasn't a source for "Under his charismatic leadership, the DLM was active etc". So I had no choice but to toss that out as well. Now we are left with properly sourced facts that are in the article. It isn't my decision to remove those elements from the Lead it is Wiki policy and guidelines.Momento (talk) 08:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * again you have deleted material without concensus only based on your opinion, this seems to me your current pattern and should be reported.Surdas (talk) 10:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree Surdas. It's extremely concerning that Momento is removing a lot of material that took years (since 2004!) to establish and become stable.  Momento is undoing that work without adequate discussion and without any concensus.  Btw, I've read WP:Lead and there's nothing there that excuses this style of editing.  I suggest Momento read WP:Ownership.  Sylviecyn (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact, the difference in the Lead between March and today is that it is precisely one word longer. So a lot of material has not been removed. What has happened is more sourced material has been added and unsourced and repeated material removed.Momento (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * i find it almost unbearable that a current follower is deciding what is a reliable source and what not.Surdas (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not deciding what is reliable or not. What I have done is notice that the source says "religious" not "Indian"; that there is no source for "DLM became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West", nor "Under his charismatic leadership", nor "though it was sometimes described as a cult". And added two sentences to cover the 30 years from 1982. And I would remind you and others that your comment "unbearable that a current follower is deciding etc" is a personal attack and "Personal attacks and harassment are contrary to this spirit, damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia, and may result in blocks".Momento (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ok, i apologise for the follower, but it is a fact that you scratched the cult sentence in the article only based on your opinion and then amending the lead to it, saying you just followed the guidelines. Reminds me of Jossi who changed the policy rules for his conveniance and later relating to it.Surdas (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read WP:LEAD.Momento (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can find a compromise following an idea from user John Carter, who had some suggestions a little while ago concerning a to-be-created-manual-of-style for religious subjects. He suggested, if I remember correctly, to give information on their historic provenience along with disputed sources, to allow a clearer picture. I think, the "cult"-issue is historically relevant enough to be mentioned in the article, reasonably embedded, perhaps not necessarily in the lead. The article covers a lot of less notable issues, and if this one is left out, would continually be susceptble to reproach of POV. Suggestions?--Rainer P. (talk) 11:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * i think we can all remember that mentioning the cult leader in the lead was inserted by Jimbo Wales personally to make an important point, concerning Prem Rawat. It was relativated then further on, by concensus with the help from Will Beback and now it shall disappear into nothing. I suggest, we inform Jimbo about what happened to his entry and what kind of course the article has now taken. Surdas (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, but remember: In science, to switch from evidence-based proceedings to eminence-based is usually considered a setback in quality. BTW, what happened to Maelefique?--Rainer P. (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * if you followed the ARB:com on WillBeback Jimbo was criticized for interfering and using his position.Momento (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The main reason "cult" was allowed in the lead was because DLM was correctly identified - "Divine Light Mission (DLM) became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West, though it was sometimes described as a cult". Once 'new religious movement' was removed because "the fastest growing new religious movement in the West" had no source, then "cult" had to go because it couldn't remain as the main description. The DLM article describes "the western movement was widely seen as a new religious movement, a cult, a charismatic religious sect or an alternative religion" and Geaves was the source of "the fastest growing new religious movement in the West". If editors are happy to have a full description of DLM in this article and Geaves comment then we could reinstate something like "Divine Light Mission (DLM) became the fastest growing new religious movement in the West, though it was sometimes '''described as a cult".Momento (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How is: ... and tens of thousands of followers had been initiated. It became the fastest growing NRM in the West and was widely seen as a charismatic cult at the time. for the lead, and put the full account into the 70-73 section?--Rainer P. (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * you need sources and you won't find a source saying "widely seen as a charismatic cult".Momento (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then it is not sourced properly in the DLM article as well. I meant it as a sort of roundup of Geaves's, Kent's, and Larson's statements, which are later sourced in the article.--Rainer P. (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Maybe I'm too tired to find the right balance between abstraction and precision - it's past 1 p.m. here. Good night!--Rainer P. (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * One reason why I have confined myself to editing the lead is to avoid the issues of adding or subtracting from the article (apart from the out of date "Interview" sentence). With the lead, the sources are either in the article or they're not. And the process of summarising the article for the lead reduces a large body of material to bare bones. I would be happy to edit the article with the co-operation of other editors to ensure major issues are covered and therefore eligible for the lead but I am not interested in a POV battle.Momento (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No disagreement there. When opposing parties realize they can be of use for each other, there is a chance for real advancement (Chinese wisdom).--Rainer P. (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead para four
I propose removing "Prem Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses" because it is undue weight. Two sources are provided in the article. One says ", "The purest forms of charismatic leaders are currently Bhagwan and Maharaj Ji. This shows that personal qualities alone are insufficient for the recognition of charismatic leadership. The intelligent, ever-changing, and daily appearing Bhagwan is no less a charismatic leader than the materialistic, spoilt, and intellectually unremarkable Guru Maharaj Ji". Being intellectually "unremarkable" does not mean having "a lack of intellect" and does not refer to his "public discourses". The second source is Stephen Kent who wrote about his experience as a 22 year old,  "I found his poorly delivered message to be banal...Riding home with a friend that evening in the back seat of a car, I listened incredulously as my companions spoke glowingly about the message that they had just received. In fact, they were so moved by the guru's words that they made tentative plans to return the next day to pay homage to him by kissing his feet". It is clearly inappropriate because a) "banal" doesn't meaning "lacking in intellect", b) omitting his description of the others in his quote changes his meaning, and c) more importantly it is completely unacceptable to put to opinion of one single 22 year old in the lead as if it has any importance what so ever.Momento (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * you can continue the whitewash as you please it seems. No neutral editor is interested to get engaged in this article. Happy POV pushingSurdas (talk) 05:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest reasoned discourse rather than attacking an editor. If you don't like something be specific and deal with that edit. Thanks. (olive (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC))


 * There are numerous neutral editors watching this article (two who have commented recently) and it seems they agree that putting the distorted summary of the opinion that a 22 year old held forty years ago into the Lead as the single description of Rawat's "public discourses" is giving it undue weight.Momento (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * numerous neutral editors? i have seen one who critised your POV pushing, but you don't care. I oppose to your edits, but you are just ignoring it, keeping on deleting and whitewashing the article, with your pseudo arguments. A 22 year old for example, wasn't this a youth religion/cult, who do you think fell for the con at that time, doctors, professors? Wikipedia is loosing if you are allowed to continue the way you are breaking the balance that existed in the article. Surdas (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There are 431 people watching this page. Since you value professors, I imagine you'd be happy if I inserted this material from the article in the lead. "According to Professor Emeritus Dr. James Downton Rawat's students changed in a positive way, "more peaceful, loving, confident and appreciative of life".[127]. Momento (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you know there are 431 people watching this page? I don't know how this edit ended up without my signature, but I still want to know how Momento knows how many people are watching this page, given that WP:Watch "Privacy" section states that even administrators know who's watching pages.  Sylviecyn (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you stop wasting your time Momento. When the community eventually wakes up to your heavily biased single-purpose editing this article will be most likely be reverted to it's former state (which a number of people agreed was quite stable). Quite rightly nobody seems to have the stomach to engage your taunts, endless straw-man arguments and thinly-guised revisionism any longer. Having myself wasted hours trying to make you see sense over the years (to absolutely no avail) I can see why. I guess your making up for lost time after your years ban. How pathetic.PatW (talk) 09:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)!
 * thanks for finding the right words. Momento is completely team work resistant Surdas (talk) 09:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from all those personal attacks. Good editors have been banned for less. We should try and remain on (or reach, to begin with) a strictly argumentative level. "Stability" is not really an argument, and it is instructive to read WP:Consensus.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For goodness sake we've been reading all those WP guidelines for YEARS! We all well versed in that! Does it do the slightest good? No! Stuff all this preaching about "personal attacks". It just sounds like Jossi again - totally 'passive' aggressive and threatening but couched as carefully as possible in calculatedly correct but twisted Wikispeak. As if Momento is interested in any 'Consensus' whatsoever with anyone other than you!! Do you think his last rash of Prem Rawat revisionism was done with 'consensus'??  NO WAY! Also if you call Momento's endless blustering and POV pushing anything approaching 'argumentative' then you're wrong. He NEVER sensibly engages argument, he just sets up straw men and goes ahead and just does what the **** he pleases. PatW (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's hear your argument why the opinion of a 22 year old who saw Rawat once should by the sole opinion presented on Rawat's teaching in the lead rather than the opinion of Professor Emeritus Dr. James Downton who studied a dozen of Rawat's students for six years.Momento (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be more helpful if, when making arguments, that, instead of referring to a source as "...opinion of a 22 year old..." (or, as in the instance above you described a source "an exorcist") that you state the name of the source. Stephen A. Kent wrote a book that was published in 2001, not when Kent was 22 years old. Here's the lead paragraph from the wikipedia article on Kent's book, From Slogans to Mantras: Social Protest and Religious Conversion in the Late Vietnam War Era. From Slogans to Mantras
 * "From Slogans to Mantras: Social Protest and Religious Conversion in the Late Vietnam War Era is a non-fiction book by sociologist Stephen A. Kent. The book was published in both hardcover and paperback editions, in 2001. Benjamin Zablocki provided the foreword to the work. From Slogans to Mantras was cited by Choice as an Outstanding Academic Title that should be owned by every library."

The book is clearly a reliable source, is critically acclaimed, and the sentence stays. Personally attacking sources doesn't make them any less reliable only because one doesn't like what they have to say about a subject. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So the way momento presents his arguments is based on deception? Surdas (talk) 07:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely the only way forward is for non-neutral editors to limit their activities here to the talk page. The idea of consensus was that, since this article's history has been one of followers being extremely dominant and pushy with THEIR agenda, things were supposed to be discussed here thoroughly first...and not just amongst followers. That hasn't worked since Momento has returned, pushing for, and making contentious, biased edits without proper agreement. I wholly concur with the person who has commented [here] that aggressive single purpose editors like Momento should be stopped. He's already ruined any goodwill we all had. PatW (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Kent's book may of course be a reliable source for the things that he has actually dealt with in a scientific manner. Not everything from cover to cover in that book is to be used with equal dignity. This goes for all sources. If there is information available with more scientific weight, it should be considered accordingly. So please cool all that righteous indignation (in Germany there is a saying: Gerechte Empörung ist der Heiligenschein der Scheinheiligen. The pun gets lost in translation, but it means: Righteous indignation is the gloriole of the sanctimonious).--Rainer P. (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You've missed my point, I'm not suggesting Kent isn't a reliable source, I'm saying that there are many reliable sources who discuss Rawat's teachings and it is therefore undue weight to only have Kent's opinion in the Lead. But rather than add the opinions of Downton, Melton, Geaves, Galanter etc it is easier to have none.Momento (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps an agreeable solution for the lead could be something to the effect of: There have been divergent reactions from scientific authors?--Rainer P. (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But that doesn't say anything. Clearly we can't allow Kent to be the only one to comment on Rawat's teachings and it would take a long time to get a satisfactory consensus. Let's leave all opinions in the article where they can be expanded on and various views expressed rather than just one view highlighted in the Lead.Momento (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it would serve to announce that divergent scientific views, which cannot be summarized shortly, are going to be mentioned in the article body. And it's a compromise. Besides, a tendency for polarised and strongly divergent reactions have been in a way characteristical for Rawat's public reception. That is why we have this consensus problem here.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Why are we even discussing this? Momento made the edit to the lead a couple of hours after he posted his proposal above. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I wish we were discussing this instead of all the bickering and sabre rattling that is being staged here. I believe we can find an agreeable compromise, and Momento's edit is, as anything, subject to change in the course of developement on a rational basis.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't tell me I'm being irrational. I'm not bickering or sabre rattling either. My posts in this thread are quite reasoned and researched.  And now this! The header for this section starts with Momento proposing removal of the one sentence.  Three or 4 hours after his "proposal" he made the edit without discussion.  I was assuming good faith and didn't bother to check the actual article until yesterday, when to my great chagrine and surprise, I found he had already made the edit.  Stephen A. Kent's book is highly critically acclaimed by the ALA's (American Library Association) magazine Choice Choice, Current Views for Academic Libraries It's a division of the American Library Association (ALA) that reviews academic books for academic libraries.  One cannot get a better endorsement for a reliable source.  Here is the University of Alberta (Canada) academic page featuring prominent reviews of Kent's book From Slogans to Mantras: Social Protest and Religious Conversion in the Late Vietnam War Era.  Sylviecyn (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * in fact rainer is supporting the behaviour of momento, being a follower himself he never reverted any deletion or change made by momento. Our protest against it remains with no impact whatsoever. It is almost like the good and bad cop tactic, as it has been practiced by Jossi, when using two or more accounts some time ago. The decision not to make edits without concensus is held up by former followers only.Surdas (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not think of you, Sylviecyn, when I made that remark, sorry. To me it appeared like some editors are hoping for a gullible Clint Eastwood to make their day. Still Momento's critique of solely featuring Kent's assessment in the lead section is worth being addressed, don't you agree? And surely we can find an agreeable wording for the lead, that covers what is said in the article. I made a proposal above, for starters. What do you think? And I am nobody's good cop or sock-puppet. Anybody can insert text, when it is an improvement. I usually hesitate to do so, because I am not as competent in your language as I wish I were. That's why I neither revert Momento's edits nor opponents'. And I am sure there is a better strategy for consensus than just stonewalling, when there is justifiable critique. In the end, as I understand from WP:Consensus, the better argument tops the desire for consensus. --Rainer P. (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * While I don't want to get involved on this page, I do hope to see it move in the direction of concrete attempts to deal with everyone's issues about the article, so Rainer's attempt to pull this discussion back on track seems a move in a positive direction. (olive (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC))
 * I agree. I came to this page to see if the allegations being made about Memento's editing were true, but what strikes me as more egregious are the constant personal attacks by PatW and Surdas.  Because of the hostility and unconstructive comments by those two, I'm unwilling to get involved at this point.  PatW and Surdas, if you will work on getting your behavior back in line with WP's policies, I think more page watchers, such as myself, might be willing to get involved in the content discussion.  Cla68 (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * i haven't given any unworthy comments as long as there were neutral editors watching,commenting and working on this article.I have to admit that momento is right when he says  that numerous editors are watching this article and they would interfere if they'd found something wrong in his actions. This didn't happen. That can only mean that you are going conform with his actions and the only problem is my and Pat's behaviour on the talk page. Sorry for that. I personally can only hope for another article in the register. Surdas (talk) 06:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How about adding: "Especially in the early years after his appearance in the West, Rawat was predominantly ridiculed or criticised by popular press. There have been highly divergent reactions from scientific authors." That sounds coherent and neutral to me and covers a lot of article content.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Prem Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses." That's the sentence Momento removed.  Yet, it's Paul Schnabel who "...characterized Rawat as materialistic, pampered and intellectually unremarkable compared to Osho, but no less charismatic."  Of Kent: "Sociologist Stephen A. Kent wrote that as a 22-year-old hippie, he found Rawat's message to be banal and poorly delivered, though his companions spoke about it glowingly."  Therefore, it's not only media that covered Guru Maharaj ji, academic scholars of NRMs, who are primarily sociologists, also covered him.  So, not only do I think the sentence should be reverted, I think it should be expanded as follows:  "Prem Rawat has been criticized for lack of intellectual content and banality in his message."  Additionally, I don't want to see anyone cutting the article proper with a justification based upon recent removal of key parts of the lead (which I think ought to be revisited).  Since 2004 this article has been argued over, mediated (to no success), and gone through two arbitrations.  Sylviecyn (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You are again ignoring Momento's critique of this sentence being in the lead section, instead you add insult to injury, so to speak. It still does not cover the highly divergent statements of other sociologists, as Downton, Geaves, Hunt and some more, but makes a rather exeptional statement, which should not be picked for the lead for its one-sidedness. But I feel a little foolish repeating this over and over again. I think, my proposal covers more ground and is a lot more NPOV. What's your problem with it? If you are not willing to treat this issue constructively, I should actually endorse Momento's deletion of the sentence, as this is a BLP. And your remark about cutting the article proper with a justification based upon recent removal of key parts of the lead is unbased and sounds rather straw-man to me.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree that Downton and Hunt have "highly divergent" statements. They have quite a range of opinions on Rawat, positive and negative.  Have you read all of those sources recently?  The link to resources, including scholars, is at the beginning of this talk section.  Plus, it's not "undue weight" to have such a statement in the lead, so that's where I disagree with Momento.  The majority of sources, including media, are based upon Rawat's early life.  It's not the fault of editors here that Rawat never undergoes mainstream, unscripted interviews anymore.  Momento made the edit without any prior discussion and that's a clear violation of the ArbII findings and limitations on editing practices here.  Geaves should be given less weight due to his decades-long association with Rawat as a devotee.  My last sentence to  you about not cutting the article based on Momento's revisions to all the lead paragraphs, was not an accusation, but a simple wish based upon my knowledge of this article's history since 2004.  It took years to get the lead the way it was before Momento started doing wholesale revisions recently without allowing thorough discussion, givine folks 24 hours to comment.  Please try not to read tone in my posts here based on your preconceptions of myself.  I'm using sound, reasoned, and rational argument to state my case without emotional reaction.  It's absolutely not personal at all. :) Come up with a counter-proposal to my proposal and let's work this out.  All the best.  Sylviecyn (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * momento ripping apart the lead only following his opinion and ignoring the call for concensus doesn't matter, does it? But telling sylviecyn she allegedly is ignoring momento's arguments is a big issue. Hard to understand. But for me she has a point and Momento might have a point. I don't think the better argument tops the concensus, because who decides what is the better argument? You? Surdas (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If we can formulate the argument, it might be helpful to stage a RfC. Maybe more uninvolved editors are listening than we think. Perhaps we are all routine-blind.--Rainer P. (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus and collaborative editing by definition mean that what is at issue is not whose argument is better but rather where is the point where all editors can agree. If editors adhere to the processes Wikipedia has in place to reach agreement, the process works quite well. In terms of the lead Momento and Rainer have a strong point. The lead must be an attempt summarize the article and all of the sources. Using one source to summarize many unless that source itself summarizes the sources, creates undue weight and slants the article in a POV direction. A personal opinion by a 22 year old is just that, and should in no way be used to characterize, especially in a BLP, another human beings intellect. Further, intellect is hard to gauge in anybody, so there had better be some very strong sources that directly relate to the content. What I see from the content at the top of this section is that there is some OR going on in terms of description.  For example, banal does  not refer to intellect. Highly intelligent people can be banal at times. So an editor cannot take a word like banal and extrapolate from it intelligence. The source should directly reference "intelligence", and banal does not do that. I think Rainer has offered a good solution to the dilemma here, and its worth considering.(olive (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC))
 * The points of view of the scholars of new religious movements are based on their academic expertise, based upon their extensive studies in their field of NRMS and the only thing we have is what has been written by them. The "22 year old comment" is a red herring because the statement is taken from Stephen A. Kent's book (as described above) that was published in 2001, not when Kent was 22.  Kent was 50 when the book was published and was a well-established scholar by t hen. I hope we can dispense with anymore discussion of the "22 year old."  Rainer's solution addressess media attention only (much of which is negative press coverage) not scholars.  I'm willing to compromise to including both scholars of NRMs and media, and the end result will be that Rawat received negative assessments from scholars and the press.  I'm just the messenger. Sylviecyn (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Its fine to use opinions given by scholars as scholars, anecdotal information is just that and is not scholarly. There is no end result in a neutral article, just information. I know nothing about Rawat but I suggest summarizing the sources as you say, (both media and scholarly seems a good way to go), in as neutral away as possible. Then let the reader decide what to take away from the information we offer. (olive (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC))
 * Using some of Sylviecyn's words: Especially in the early years after his appearance in the West, Rawat was predominantly ridiculed or criticised by popular press, while there have been quite a range of opinions on Rawat, positive and negative, by scholars. Compare it to what we had before in the Lead. Improvement? --Rainer P. (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The aspect of being ridiculed by the press is already in the Lead. The phrase "while there have been quite a range of opinions on Rawat, positive and negative, by scholars" doesn't convey any information. In fact, the two most extensive studies of followers by Downton and Galanter are positive. Downer said "the students had changed in a positive way, "more peaceful, loving, confident and appreciative of life" and "Aside from all the psychological and social explanations one could offer to explain their conversions, the fact is that, during the Knowledge session or afterward in meditation, these young people had a spiritual experience which deeply affected them and changed the course of their lives. It was an experience which moved many to tears and joy, for they had found the answer they had been seeking. It was an experience which gave their lives more positive direction, meaning, and purpose. It was an experience which brought them into a new relationship to life and removed many blocks to growth. It was an experience-which sages have spoken about throughout history-of the oneness of life". Galanter said ""over the long term of membership, meditation also played an important role in supporting a convert's continuing involvement. An analysis of the relationship between the time members spent in meditation and the decline in their level of neurotic distress revealed that greater meditation time was associated with diminished neurotic distress". I believe it is impossible to summarise this sort of detailed opinion plus what Chrysidies, Schnabel, Geaves Hunt, Kent, et al said into a sentence or two in the Lead, so it is best to leave it to the reader to discover these opinions in the article.Momento (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, the ridicule bit needs not appear twice, so we can scratch one. But I disagree that the other part of the sentence conveys no information. It signals 1) that there are scholarly works, which are 2) going to be elaborated on further back in the article, and that they 3) come to divergent assessments. That is IMO enough for the Lead. It may keep a reader i:nterested enough to read on. I would not at this point value the differing results but keep it simple. The lead is already longer than a summary should be.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:LEAD says "While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article". I gave this proposal a lot of thought before making it and the edit. I really can't see a way to introduce an opinion.Momento (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how generally mentioning scholarly works "teases" a reader, but may perhaps create interest. No promises are made, no opinion stated. And if a reader is not willing to read past the Lead - which may be a considerable percentage - at least he/she learns that there has been scholarly attention.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What you are proposing is exactly what WP:LEAD advises against. You suggest that there are "positive and negative " opinions but don't state what they are. .Momento (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not how I read WP:Lead.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's a language thing. Compare "When Rawat turned sixteen he took administrative control of the American organisation and became more active in guiding the movement" or "As Rawat got older some things happened". The first is loaded with important facts that are unique to PR. The second says things happened but doesn't say what they are.Momento (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there some middle ground between Rainer's summary and Momento's points. The summary could be expanded somewhat to give more information while still summarizing rather than being too specific. (olive (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC))
 * I can't even begin to think how I would summarise the wealth of scholastic material. I like the way the Lead is, chronological facts from 1957 to 2011+. Followed by a summary of Rawat's claim to fame the Knowledge he teaches.Momento (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If there is wealth of scholastic material, it should mentioned in the lead. A lead is by definition summarizing, and that summary can be more or less specific simply dependent on who is doing the summary. But I assume you're  not suggesting leaving the reference content out but that it will be difficult to summarize, If that is the case then even a simple summary will do for now while leaving out a summary of the scholastic content because there is so much of it would not be an option. (olive (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC))
 * I disagree. Your analogy is not logical. Some things happened really does not mean anything, but not everybody who has been ridiculed by the press has also been covered in a more or less scholarly manner, as a contrast to the main stream public reaction. There is so much space for scholarly content in the article that it actually should not be left unmentioned, but nobody can expect a thorough evaluation of the findings in the Lead, so mentioning that there have been divergent assessments is not only legitimate but required. Of course one can change the wording, or the placement.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have a look at the Teaching section and the Teachings of Prem Rawat article there isn't a great divergence. The majority of scholars describe what Rawat is teaching in a neutral way.Momento (talk) 09:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * O.k., then we could perhaps switch divergent for in a neutral way. It is still a notable information for the summary, and a lot better than that awkward Kent remark.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * My thought given this discussion is that the Kent comment is not the whole or even real issue. I wonder if it would be a good idea to lay our what should be in the lead by category then simply fill in with a summary of the information. Right now it appears that mention of scholastic research, and general responses have been left out of the lead. (olive (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC))
 * Of the anomalies in the Lead the Kent comment was perhaps the most serious. Highlighting one section of one scholar's opinion to the exclusion of all others. Most of the article and most of the Lead is sourced from scholars. Their singular contribution is the fourth para description of what Rawat does. Responses are covered by "His claimed ability to impart direct knowledge of God attracted a great deal of interest from young adults but he was ridiculed by the media for his youth and his supposed divine status".Momento (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with I can't even begin to think how I would summarise the wealth of scholastic material, I can't either. The Kent issue was the one that could be comparatively easy to fix, and that has taken years and seems to be not finished yet. I think, our awareness is growing while we're going on, and public attention seems to be shifting. When people today hear about Rawat and then look him up in WP, it will just not explain enough to display him as some freaky cult leader from the 70es, who has somehow managed to survive after he has had his day. The article must also offer information which supports an understanding of the ongoing phenomenon, to lessen cognitive dissonance. Of course one who has nothing to offer cannot in a single handed effort develop tools like the TPRF or WOPG over the course of several decades. There must be an explanation for that, which satisfies the intelligence of an interested reader. That was why the controversial Kent bit was such a highlighted issue and has to go from the Lead, and to imbed or balance it would take way too much space. But there should be a sentence there that indicates that there was far more than only that stereotype press reaction. I don't insist on any wording.
 * Now we have 3 positions: 1) Sylviecyn propagates no change at all, for stability reasons, or would even have "banal" included additionally. Please correct me if I'm wrong. 2) Momento finds it impossible to address the scholar issue in one ore two sentences in an appropriate way, that would not start endless debates and possibly still not lead to consensus, and would rather delete. Please correct me if I'm wrong. 3) I propose one sentence that attempts to - admittedly - very roughly summarize much of the article content, without going into details. Anybody can help with the wording, which can certainly be improved. --Rainer P. (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems right. I think the major points are already covered in the Lead and the last para does a fair job of summarising Rawat's teaching which is his claim to notability. I don't see what else needs to be summarised in the Lead.Momento (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * One thing I would like to see changed before the scholarly sources get further discussed is the phrase "but he was ridiculed by the media". It seems to imply that the ridicule was universal and without exception, which we cannot say. "Largely ridiculed" seems more accurate and cautious. Rumiton (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcome back Rumiton. The article says "His arrival in the United States was met with some ridicule, as the teenaged Rawat was seen as immature and hence unfit to be a religious leader", so something less universal would be appropriate. The Lead suggests he was ridiculed for his "supposed divine nature" but I don't see that in the article but there certainly is a a slab about "possessions, money" that might warrant a mention in the Lead. etc.Momento (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the welcome. I have agreed to be less grumpy on this article and will start now. Nobody likes grumpy people. Rumiton (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad you're back, Rumiton! I agree with adding "largely", as it helps precision. I also suggest an addition after ...ridiculed, something like: and criticised for his lifestyle. And I agree we should find something more precise for that divine nature bit.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no desire to deal with the kinds of attacks that are tossed around in this article. My comment here was a beginning of suggesting the lead be rewritten, "My thought given this discussion is that the Kent comment is not the whole or even real issue. I wonder if it would be a good idea to lay our what should be in the lead by category then simply fill in with a summary of the information. Right now it appears that mention of scholastic research, and general responses have been left out of the lead." While Momento made a good point in the opening of this thread, I would make one final general statement which In my comments I had hoped to address, and that is that the lead does not summarize the  content in the article, and should include per NPOV more of the article's pejorative content. I have no desire to be attacked as I have been here nor to watch anyone else being attacked as Momento has been whatever his POV might be. And I'd note that editors with single person accounts might ask themselves if they  have  biases. The editors on this page have chased away two uninvolved editors and more will follow unless the tone on this article changes. Frustration is a given on a contentious article. Frustration does not mean attacks are OK.(olive (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC))

Olive, I want you to know that your contributions are appreciated by me, for one, and probably by most editors here. The article is contentious, because the subject is. Our chance is the strict adherence to WP rules and policies. A fresh angle is certainly welcome on this old battlefield! Also, when we perhaps have grown a little hard-skinned, you have rightfully supported civility, thank you. Hope you keep it up and remain with us.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Littleolive, please stick around. The recent comments from you and other editors shows that ad hominem attacks will no longer be tolerated and at last we can concentrate on content rather than allegiances. There are still problems with the article which reflect in the Lead so I'm interested in how you see both developing. As for biases, that is not a necessary product of SPA. One of the most biased editors on this article has made tens of thousands of edits to hundred of articles.Momento (talk) 03:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that an SPA is not necessarily biased, and I didn't mean to imply that. What I mean to say, not clearly, obviously, is that SPAa can develop a kind of tunnel vision which doesn't necessarily help them maintain an unbiased position. Any editor of course can get caught up in an article and lose perspective. Contention doesn't come from an article intrinsic to the topic or subject in my opinion, but in how we view and deal with that article, although certain topics will spark contention more readily than others. I think both sides here have to be careful. Sticking to the merely technical aspects of writing an article, ie, the lead must summarize what's in the article and the article must represent the mainstream whatever that is rather than focusing on Rawat himself will make editing easier. And frankly, articles that are either pejorative or  flatter to an extreme are red flags for most intelligent readers, so dealing with the sources in a neutral way will honour the topic in the best way. We don't have the right to harm whatever our positions are, and frankly we can harm with too much positive or the opposite. I'll get off my soapbox now, :O) and I may have some time to look at the lead in the next few days.(olive (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC))
 * Excellent Littleolive.Momento (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Olive. In the lead, the lifestyle- and possessions-issue should be covered, and also the cult issue, both in a NPOV way. For the first I suggest something along Especially in the beginning years, he was largely ridiculed for his low age and his claim to be able to show a way to directly experience the Divine, and he was criticised for his apparently opulent lifestyle and wealth. We can surely warrant that from the article body.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Really?? I thought he was ridiculed for both he and his followers claims that he was 'The Lord of The Universe' etc. I'd like to see any reference (not written by followers such as Geaves) which support your frankly untrue version which is shot through with weasel words like 'apparently' . Is 'NPOV' supposed to mean that we kowtow to the embarrassment and denial current followers (and Rawat himself) exhibit about his former proclamations of Divinity  and being ridiculously  opulent as a result of the success of that perception? PatW (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I feel neither embarrassement nor a need for denial. Rather I feel harassement from unconstructive innuendo and imputation.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * experience the divine? He said i will show you God! Why watering it down, so it becomes digestable for readers. Don't you get a feeling that this is going to be a pamphlet for rawat rather than an article of an encyclopedia? Surdas (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly Surdas. AND...I'm not accusing you personally of embarrassment and denial Rainer P. Please stop suggesting I'm harrassing you. I feel you are all trying to make me the scapegoat for all the aggression here but can you give it a break? This is not a personal attack. You cannot take every objection and criticism of premies as an attack on you - but maybe you do because what I'm saying might apply to you as a premie. Sorry but that's the price for premies editing here - they/we are a kind of a part of Rawat's story here and it's not a matter of harassment but more challenging your arguments. This is a serious question about the Encyclopaedic summary of a HIGHLY controversial and contentious man. The guy that threw a cream pie in his face in Detroit nearly died when irate premies smashed his skull in with a hammer. He now has died. That was widely reported. Many people have come up with pertinent arguments that Rawat and followers have conspired to deny the past. There was the burning of all the old magazines that worshipped and proclaimed him as 'The Lord'. The Peace Is Possible book turned out to be a rewrite of his life (essentially paid for by him or his supporters). There is a movement of disaffected ex-premies who've protested publicly this - and it has been reported in local newspapers here in the UK. Rawat's organisation publicly condemned 'ex-premies' as a "Hate Group"- there are dozens of anti-Rawat websites that people looking at this article will aware of and see the huge discrepancy in the reporting here. The whole history here has been one of premie editors trying to deny his former Divinity Claims despite the HUGE repeatedly presented evidence that he encouraged people to believe he was The 'Perfect Master' and 'Superior Power In Person'. Just look at the History pages (and my Talk Page) Before Maelefique (neutral editor) vanished the other week he said he was working on addressing exactly the issue of Rawat's 'Divinity'. Sorry, but your summary sentence smacks to me of the opposite of more NPOV. By far the majority of press reports have criticised or mocked a) his Divinity (they were always asking him if he was God etc). b) his flamboyant, wealthy lifestyle and of course c) his age. There was no doubt or 'apparently' about his opulent lifestyle and, I doubt if you can find any evidence that he was criticised for his 'claim to be able to show a way to directly experience the Divine' (is that your phrasing?) Of course there may be some criticism somewhere like that. But I wonder why that has been presented instead of the more prevalent accusations about his personal divinity. Probably because it is less contentious to say someone teaches just 'how to get in touch with the Divine within us all' . That is so NOT what it was all about. That is clearly now the current message BUT the predominant additional message throughout his life has been 'gratitude' and devotion to the one who shows you how to meditate - ie him. Serving him directly was a stated requirement of his teachings as was devotion to him. What exactly do you think I am harrassing you about or that I am hinting at with innappropriate innuendo? PatW (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some confusion as to the meaning of "divine". "Divine" is an adjective. A "guru" by definition is divine. Rawat stopped using the word "Guru" in his title in the early 80s as the article says "Once called "Perfect Master", Prem Rawat abandoned his "almost divine status as guru" but affirmed his status as a master. Scholars such as Kranenborg and Chryssides describe the departure from divine connotations".Momento (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I adhere to the generally accepted meaning of the word "Divine" just to allay the confusion you suggest. Rainer's proposed wording was concerned with describing the "early years" before Rawat abandoned his "almost divine status" hence my criticism.PatW (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The third sentence of the second para does say "His claimed ability to impart direct knowledge of God attracted a great deal of interest from young adults but he was ridiculed by the media for his youth and his supposed divine status". As for the pie incident, it is very badly presented in the article. The source is an article titled "Guru wants to Help" and says
 * "Pat Halley, the notorious pie thrower, was brutally attacked in Detroit by two assailants who then fled the scene. When local members of the Divine Light Mission heard of this incident and became aware that Divine Light Mission personnel or devotees of Guru Maharaj Ji, said to be a 15-year-old perfect master and spiritual head of the Divine Light Mission, might be involved, they notified the young Guru at his residence in Los Angeles.


 * Guru Maharaj Ji immediately requested that Divine Light Mission conduct a full investigation to see if any information concerning the parties responsible could be brought to light. As a result of this investigation the suspected assailants were located. They confessed their part in the incident and offered to turn themselves in. The local authorities were immediately notified and the suspected assailants are now being held in protective custody.


 * Local and national officials of Divine Light Mission say they are extremely shocked and appalled by the occurance of this event; for the brutal action taken is in direct opposition to all that the Mission stands for and to the expressed wishes of Guru Maharaj Ji. The young Guru himself said he was amazed when the news was conveyed to him. He expressed his regret at the incident and concern for the welfare of Mr. Halley. He further extended his regrets and condolences to Pat Halley's family and friends with the assurance that Divine Light Mission wishes to help in whatever way possible and to see that persons responsible for this event are brought to justice".


 * And the way you describe Pat Halley beating and death, it might seem that they're related. Halley was beaten in 1973 and died in 2012.Momento (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Halley recently committed suicide. Yes, it would indeed be conjecture to associate this with his earlier injuries. Sorry if it read that way. However I agree the story is not well presented. I found the incident covered in Divine Light Mission article. Maybe that's where it belongs. There is some criticism of Rawat for his handling of the affair - that is not apparent here. Whether it should be I'm npt sure. "He should have pursued this matter more aggressively and made sure the perpetrators were apprehended and tried in a court of law". p163  Soul Rush. A 1974 New York Times article reports: "the record shows that neither assailant - both of whom are extremely prestigious members of the Mission - has been removed from the Guru's good graces. One of them, a mahatma, or high priest, charged with initiating new members into the organization. was "shipped off to Germany" to continue his work. The other, an American who is considered the reincarnation of St. Peter, has eluded the law with equal success."  I'm not sure how the reference to the incident here could be improved. Maybe Olive has some ideas?PatW (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PatW, you left off a sentence. After the DLM found and held the perpetrators the Detroit police refused to arrest them. The New York Times later reported that "This lack of action by the Detroit police was attributed by some to Halley's radical politics". And as this article explains when Rawat split with his mother "Most of the mahatmas either returned to India or were dismissed". And as you know the mahatma concerned left Rawat to go with his mother.Momento (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not "leave off" anything. I was fully aware of the info that HAS been reported. What I have pointed out what HAS NOT been said. There is no evidence that the mahatma left Rawat to 'go with his mother'. To the contrary the report explicitly says that he was 'shipped off to Germany" to continue his work. The fact he later left Rawat is immaterial. PatW (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Since they contradict each other, it's good to mention both. As the article states Rawat was not in charge until four months after the beating, so had little control over the Mahatma. And I'm not claiming any "evidence" that "the mahatma concerned left Rawat to go with his mother". I suggested YOU knew via your involvement with the anti-Rawat forum.Momento (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please could you tell me exactly which article you referring to? PatW (talk) 10:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This article.Momento (talk) 11:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In my almost humble opinion, any reference to Prem Rawat's divinity should be accompanied by his repeated statement that WE ARE ALL DIVINE or that GOD IS WITHIN US ALL, as all respected gurus and yogis have said for thousands of years, as well as Jesus, as you can learn in "The Second Coming of Christ, The Resurrection of the Christ within You", by Paramahansa Yogananda, if you have the willpower to read its 1800 pages. Otherwise for me it would be just the opposite of "white-washing", that is, "black-painting". Momento, I am going to propose you for the Nobel Price for Patience. Does anyone know what happened to Will Beback? Congratulations to Administrator "The Blade of the Northern Lights" for his/her comment. I find it very right and fair. There is no better way to control emotions than yoga, meditation and Knowledge. This intellectual tennis continues to be amusing for me. Have a nice time :-)--188.77.70.47 --PremieLover (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Except what you're saying isn't factual. Prem Rawat ran his NRM (and still does behind the scenes) accepting all the direct worship towards himself as being the Lord of the Universe and the divine source (not just the teacher) of the divine experience of the practice of Knowledge.  That was the purpose of ashrams, at DECA, etc.:  to surrender ourselves, body, mind and soul, while worshipping him personally and he has never disabused premies of that, except to say "I am proud to be a human being," which is a strange thing for anyone to say.  That's a fact and it isn't "black-painting," as you put it, to include his divinity in the lead.  It's quite important, imo, in order to accurately write this biolgraphy, to include these facts.  All the best. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What I am saying is not factual? That God and Knowledge are within us all is something he has been repeating ever since Prem Rawat came to the West, and you can hear/read it in numerous speeches. It is difficult to understand the reason why someone who knows the subject can say that is not factual.--PremieLover (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This isn't a forum or discussion board (See the top of this page for more info), so I'm not going to engage you in a conversation that hasn't anything to do with this article. If you have a specific edit suggestion, please feel free to do so, with sources.  Thanks   :) Sylviecyn (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Greetings PL, WillBeback has been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia, indefinitely topic banned from pages related to new religious movements, broadly construed and desysopped (removed as an admin) for conduct unbecoming an administrator. This resulted from his action regarding an editor on the TM article with one editor noting "his behavior, at topics such as Scientology, Prem Rawat, Lyndon LaRouche and Transcendental Meditation, is troubling. A variety of editors on these topics have accused him of ownership, intimidation, disruption, disregard for noticeboards; obstruction, sabotage and truth twisting". I have received several apologies regarding the lack of credence given to the irrefutable evidence I presented about WillBeback's harassment of me going back to 2008. Better late than never.Momento (talk) 06:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Momento, thanks for the information about Will Beback. Despite his alias, he Won't Beback for some time :-)I am not surprised. I once asked that Will Beback be banned. I cannot understand why a person would dedicate so much time to fight against a specific person he does not believe in, Prem Rawat, when there are so many others religious movements. Now I hear he was also against TM and Maharishi Mahesh yogi, the Beatles' guru, so there is only Osho left of the 3 best known gurus in the West. I can understand followers' interest and efforts in their own subject, but not the life-long crusades by anyone against Prem Rawat or anyone else, something similar to a phobia. What a way to waste time. Best regards --PremieLover (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This thread is too long and discussion has digressed into off topic subjects. I suggest we close it out. I also suggest that we keep paragraph 4 of the lead as it is, at least for now (I'm referring to Momento's Aug 31st edit). I now see problems with the deleted sentence. I've been quite ill for going on 2 weeks so I don't know how much I can contribute to this article until I feel better. If I can spend the time, I will. :) All the best to everyone.  Sylviecyn (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Get well soon, Sylviecyn. Perhaps one final point. Will Beback was in fact quite active at Osho, mostly being carefully correct, but occasionally revealing his anti-Eastern Religious bias. I recall him at one stage fighting for the inclusion of a statement by a born-again Christian that accused Osho of further crimes for which he had not been tried, and described his eyes as "luminous, with an almost satanic look" (quote may not be exact.) This stuff will be revisited in more detail in the unlikely event that that user tries to edit Wikipedia again. Rumiton (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Quotes
(Suggestion by PremieLover) I hope Momento, Rumiton or someone can find sources for Prem Rawat's statement that "we are all divine" or that "God is within us all" and support its inclusion in the reference to Prem's divinity. We could include the famous TV interview when he was 14 in the US, where he was directly asked "Are you God?" and he said "My Knowledge is God", together with his statement "Knowledge is not something I have in my pocket and I give it to you and then you have it, but something that is already inside of you". I think an addition like this is fair, but I don't have Momento's patience to engage in endless arguments with anti-Prem crusaders, sorry. :-) Should I start a new thread to propose this addition? There are too many opinions criticizing Prem by people who show they know nothing about yoga and meditation, but little about what Prem says.--PremieLover (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There are many quotes here..Momento (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors may not cherrypick quotes to support a point of view. Imagine the chaos that would follow if that were allowed? We all have to find reputable sources that support our understandings, not primary sources. And I am sorry, there is no substitute for patience on Wikipedia. (But I hope you stick around anyway.) Rumiton (talk) 09:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There are at least two sentences (perhaps more) mentioning his divinity without further explanation, in which a reader who knows nothing about the subject, and the subject’s subject, will think that Prem claims to be God and therefore is crazy, or his followers consider him God, and therefore are crazy”. I don’t find this fair, nor good for Wikipedia. But if this cannot be changed, ok, it cannot be changed.--PremieLover (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said above "Divine" is an adjective. A "guru" by definition is divine". in the early 80s Rawat stopped using the word "Guru" in his title, abandoned his "almost divine status as guru" and "The Hindu references and religious parables that had been prominent in his teachings gave way to a focus on the meditation techniques".Momento (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Courier Mail Article
Here's an article about PR's visit to Australia..Momento (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Jesus! Obviously this type of reporting style does not belong to the past.--Rainer P. (talk) 07:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't see anything usable in that. FWIW, I was the "devotee of 40 years." Another focuser on money, though a bit more intelligently, was the Ipswich Advertiser. Rumiton (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the final attendance figure was 4250, which maxed out the venue. Rumiton (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Reception
This article seems to lack some aspects of "reception" which should in my opinion carry a lot of weight, that is scholarly sources. I realize the Teachings of Prem Rawat article has such content but I think for the the reception section here to be complete there should be at the least a summary of what appears in the "Teachings" article. Then there should be some kind of reception content in the lead which includes this addition. Right now the small amount of content on media in the lead doesn't seem to give a good sense of how Rawat was/is received. I'll wait for discussion to make any changes.(olive (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC))


 * PS Of course discussion should focus entirely on the content with out any sidelights onto editor behaviour or other red herrings. Ok? <|>< (olive (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC))
 * I can't remember why the Teachings article was spun off but it would be great to bring back the scholars.Momento (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember it was separated because the article was deemed too long... word counts etc.PatW (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * We can always summarize, make it short.(olive (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC))
 * I would like to do some work on the reception section which could eventually impact the lead. Just to let everyone know.(olive (talk) 02:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC))


 * Perhaps we should start with a definition of "reception." I have never understood what it meant. Rumiton (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The lack of response suggests that perhaps nobody else understands it either. If that is the case, maybe we should delete that section name and redistribute the sub-sections elsewhere? Rumiton (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at how to proceed, the heading "Biography" is misleading as well, as the whole article is a living biography. We need a new heading for that section which is a timeline for the subject's work. Really, the whole article could be much better organised. Rumiton (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Reception refers to how Rawat has been perceived, for example in the press, in scholarly publication, and by his followers. There has been a move across Wikipedia to distribute criticism through out  the different sections of an article rather than in a specific section devoted to criticism so reception could be dealt with that way as well.(olive (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC))
 * Then would not perceptions be a better word? Rumiton (talk) 08:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think I misunderstood you. I agree that moving the sub-sections to other relevant areas looks like a good idea. Rumiton (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So I just did it. Didn't take anything out, but revert and discuss if it isn't liked. Rumiton (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with LittleOlive. Disperse Media Coverage, Academic coverage and Following through the article. Academic can go into Teachings. Following and Media throughout the article.Momento (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What Rumiton did isn't exactly what I meant. I meant more to integrate the content within the article which is perhaps what Momento was suggesting. Also, it was only a suggestion. I'm fine with it if others are but integration is a a big change and I'd suggest we wait for consensus before the change is made.(olive (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC))

Academic coverage?

 * The contents of this section is almost entirely about Charisma as per its previous title "Charisma and Leadership". If the heading is to be "Academic Coverage" we need to put a far broader selection of academic coverage in. I'd be inclined to summarise the "charisma" material and include it in the "Teachings" section which is almost entirely "Academic".Momento (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at it as a whole, I'd disperse Media Coverage (largely the Der Spiegel quote and a bit about "cult") and the"Size and Nature of Following" through out the article.Momento (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that. It's all just baby steps towards a better article. Rumiton (talk) 07:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Though even summarising the charisma topic isn't easy, the sources flat out contradict or refute each other. Keeping them in their own section at least stops the main body from becoming schizophrenic.
 * Stephen J. Hunt said that in Rawat's case the notion of spiritual growth is not derived — as is traditionally the case with other gurus — from his personal charisma...
 * J. Gordon Melton says Rawat's personal charisma was one of the reasons for the rapid spread of his message among members of the 1960s counterculture...
 * Ron Geaves, a Professor of Religion at Liverpool Hope University in England who is one of the Western students of Prem Rawat,[41] writes that Prem Rawat himself has stated that he does not consider himself to be a charismatic figure... (From Teachings of Prem Rawat.)
 * Dutch sociologist Paul Schnabel described Rawat as a pure example of a charismatic leader...
 * Lucy DuPertuis... described Rawat's role as a Master as emerging from three interrelated phenomena: traditional or theological definitions of Satguru; adherents' first-hand experiences of the Master; and communal accounts and discussions of the Master among devotees...(factors other than charisma.)
 * We aren't allowed to synthesise these opinions, and it would be original research (or would it?) to say something like "academics have taken widely differing views of Prem Rawat." Rumiton (talk) 10:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that would be o.k. for the summary. I made a similar proposal before.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Ron Geaves
While it seems likely that Geaves was or is a Rawat follower, I don't see a RS that states this so, iper the stringent Wikipedia BLP standards I have removed content which states Geaves is or was a follower and which has had a citation request since 2009. (olive (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC))
 * Agree.Momento (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should remove the same from the Wikipedia article on Ron Geaves which provides a source for this sentence "Geaves was one of the earliest Western students of Maharaji (Prem Rawat, known also as Guru Maharaj Ji).[2] Geaves has written a number of papers related to Maharaji and his organizations, such as the Divine Light Mission." On the other hand, if you deem that source valid then would you think it appropriate to reinsert the information here?  PatW (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. I had removed the content in the Ron Greaves article since the source Wayback Machine is  not really a source but a tool, and I don't see any sources that give this information. There may well be one so I'm asking for a quote from such a source if anyone has it. Both this and the Greaves articles are BLPs and require pretty stringent sourcing. I'm not the definitive  word on anything here, obviously, so if anyone disagrees just speak up. I don't have a problem reverting myself if there's concern. In this case though, since we are talking about BLPs, I'd like to wait until we have a RS to return the content to the article.(olive (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC))
 * i don't understand, there is still a sentence and a source said says that he is/was a follower in the Geaves article. Can i help to find a reason to remove even that so that this article can become more of a pamphlet? Surdas (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI Olive, the source used in the Geaves article is from the book 'Peace is Possible' by Andrea Cagan. Since this book has been recognised by editors as essentially a 'Vanity Press' publication (verging on being a Primary Souce) there was historically, consensus here amongst the editors to only use it as a RS for uncontentious material and then with extreme care and discussion. The same view was taken regarding Geaves' academic papers on Rawat. It was also thought important to mention Geaves was a follower in this article, where his work is used as a source for sentences like the one from which you've removed the content. I actually don't have the Peace Is Possible book to hand but others certainly do, so perhaps they could locate that reference about Geaves if you continue to require it. I have his academic paper but he does not state he is an early follower anywhere. I would like you to revert please as I still take the view that readers should be informed when sources are not entirely neutral.PatW (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * An afterthought - don't you already have the RS to the content in the reference to it coming from 'Peace Is Possible' over on the Ron Geaves article? If so can't you revert now without us having to produce the actual wording from the book? PatW (talk) 09:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PatW is incorrect about Geaves. He is a professor of religion, published by numerous academic publishers and a reliable source for this and any other article.Momento (talk) 09:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * i don't believe that olive has overseen the source in the article on geaves that he was a or is a follower of rawat.he simply didn't revert his edit in this article and i wonder what is going on here.Surdas (talk) 11:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the confusion. This is what I did. The content here saying Geaves was a Rawat student was not sourced, and a citation was asked for. We shouldn't leave unsourced content in a BLP especially when it is contested. I assume the book has the information we need but that's not good enough in BLP land so I asked for the quote which will confirm the information . Its no big deal to then readd the content back in. Books by Greaves are at the least a RS for the author's personal information, And yes he is a RS possibly dependent on the publisher of his books, IMO.


 * The content I removed from the Geaves article was sourced directly to Wayback Machine which is not a RS and I did check the archives of the RS NoticeBoard to make sure this was the position of the community. so I removed it. This is not the same content that we are dealing with here.


 * We could just add the source from the Geaves article for the content here which says Geaves was a Rawat follower, but given the contentious nature of this talk page, I thought it safer to ask for the quote.


 * This confusion is my fault. I shouldn't comment tired. I hope this explains everything. I am not against someone else adding the source from the Geaves article to this article, but for the long run, I think it would be best to make sure we have a quote confirming the information. And a BLP should never have a citation request. Unsourced content especially if contested should be removed immediately.(olive (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC))


 * As an added thought, consensus is not definitive over time. It can change, and with new editors things can change. That 's just the nature of Wikipedia. I'm not interested in fighting about anything, but we should expect that consensus could change, and past arguments and discussion simply no longer be pertinent to present situations The problem we have with identifying an author's religion, spiritual path, and other personal information is that unless we treat all authors this way our selectivity itself may be considered a POV. I'm not saying this in reference to the Geaves content, necessarily, its just a general observation. (olive (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC))


 * Does someone have the book to help us out with this quote? (olive (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC))


 * To Momento - You say I am wrong about Geaves but offer no suggestion as to what I am wrong about. I never suggested Geaves was NOT a RS in Wikipedia terms - I simply pointed out that he is known to have an obvious and reliably sourced bias. Funny how you can overlook the fact his bias clearly influences his academic work, when you passionately oppose Rawat-critical newspaper reports or certain other 'Rawat critical' books or comments for reasons such as the writer was too young or suchlike. Another very good reason that we included the info about him being a follower was that his writings on the Indian Roots (Hagiography) of Rawat directly contradict the academic work of far more well-known and respected writers on the subject such as Mark Jurgensmeyer. For example Geaves says Jurgensmeyer's tracing Rawat's guru succession to the Radhosoami sect is wrong. So Geaves' version of Rawta's history is actually contentious and we worded that section very carefully and as fairly as possible. This was one of the few edits I was actually involved in. So Geaves is technically a Reliable Source for this article but for balance and interest, and in consideration of the fact that he has been a champion (albeit controversial) 'legitimiser' of Rawat (even deserving a mention in Rawat's autobiography) it is responsible to include the sentence about him being a long-time follower. He is not just an ordinary follower but a prominent one who appears interviewed in current videos made by Rawat's organisation to promote him and who has been involved in Rawat's organisation constantly for years. Furthermore Prem Rawat used the information supplied by Geaves on his own website to claim direct descent from Totapuri (a well-known and respected Indian Guru of yore). Yes that website has now been removed (probably because it was such a transparently tenuous link) and we can't use that.PatW (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess being a follower of a controversial teacher would make me particularly meticolous and thorough. I also guess, Geaves can be counted as benchmark on the subject, and no scholar would think of ignoring his work or devaluate it. So it is POV to expose a single authors mental background, and not the others’, which BTW might even be intriguing, too, but would probably not be helpful here.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The content was removed because it was not sourced and a source had been requested. Any other discussion at this point and in reference to this edit is a red herring. Does anyone have the quote from the source so the content can be re added? A discussion on Geaves as a RS is another discussion altogether. I don't mean this comment to sound aggressive in any way. I think given the history here it is easy to get off track, so I'd like to stay on track and I am deliberately and will deliberately ignore discussion that side steps the immediate issues pertaining to the edits being made. Unless we do that you will get bogged down in the same old arguments you have in the past.(olive (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC))
 * Right on, Olive!--Rainer P. (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes Olive, everyone here except me has the book so come on guys...please can we read the quote? PatW (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have it either. I am sure, Rainer, Momento and Rumiton have it, i would have it if i was a follower, but i doubt if they will help us out. Surdas (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't carry mine with me.Momento (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have the German version. Which statement is it exactly that we need?--Rainer P. (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We need is the bit where it says: "Geaves was one of the earliest Western students of Maharaji" - I would imagine this would be found in the part where Prem Rawat's lineage is covered. If you Google "Peace Is Possible Geaves" there is a reproduced page from PIP ('Invasion from the West pages 110-111) where Ron Geaves is described as a part of a group of early followers who went to India in 1968 - this may not be the relevant part but it may suffice if you can't find that particular sentence. Olive may opine about that. PatW (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) I have the book in English. Pages 110-111 discuss Geaves' relationship with Sandy Collier and their meeting with premies in Delhi. It doesn't exactly say he became a student of Maharaji at that time, but he clearly did. This is a badly written book that I don't want to annoy myself by rereading. If someone can give me a page ref for his becoming a student or devotee I will look it up. Rumiton (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a section where Rawat's early lineage is covered? If so that will be where to look - that is if it's no hassle.PatW (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ron Geaves is even mentioned verbatim in PIP, with quotation marks, “… and eventually, Charan Anand gave me Knowledge”, between pp. 115 and 116.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I was about to buy the book. :O) I think we can take Rainer's word for it and use the PIP book with the pages he gives with the quote we need. I'll readd the content.(olive (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC))
 * Added with a slight adjustment to give equal weight to Geaves as an academic in the field of comparative religion and as a Rawat follower. Both seem critical. (olive (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC))
 * Don't feel discouraged to buy the book, Olive. It is not as bad as Rumiton hints, and quite informative. And, still I think it is debatable whether Geaves's personal convictions should be mentioned in that place. He is in no way dependent on Rawat, and there is no COI. He has also been cleared of that by his superiors at Liverpool Hope University, when he was denunciated by Rawat detractors. His inside knowledge through close affiliation to Rawat's teachings was in fact seen as an advantage for in-depth research. There are sources for that.--Rainer P. (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That's the point. Both his academic training and experience, and his inside experience give him credibility and inform the reader as to his expertise. I don't see that Geaves' experience with Rawat is negative or positive but simply another kind of knowledge. I believe there is agreement to have that content in place, so rather than march into another discussion to change the agreement on something so insignifcant, I'd suggest we move on.(olive (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC))
 * O.k.--Rainer P. (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK too. I do however think that it is not a matter of exposing Geaves' personal convictions to prove a conflict of interest and thus defame him, as you seem to rather suggest is being maliciously attempted. Surely it is simply a matter of transparent reporting. Why would anyone want to hide Geaves' affiliation? Furthermore if there have been accusations and controversy over Geaves' COI that his university has cleared him of then that too, if it is indeed as well-sourced as you say, may be of public interest and might well be appropriate to add to Ron Geaves page. Some editors here seem to think that these sorts of things are not permissable because they violate rules on BLPs. I'd be interested to know if Olive can shed some light on this. Secondly, further to Olive's comment that 'Geaves' experience with Rawat is negative or positive but simply another kind of knowledge' - I agree, but when that knowledge is contentious or even factually erroneous, then I think it would be wrong not to offer some clue as to why that might be if it is available. As I have pointed out, Geaves' version of Rawat's lineage, however correct it may be, refutes what other scholars have written and he has attracted some accusations as a 'legitimiser' of PR. Finally, before you lump me in with Geaves' detractors - that is not the case. I felt his tracing the lineage to Advait Mat deserved an inclusion here, I respected his views and made the edit after discussion with Rumiton, Jayen etc (this was Sept 2010). Contrary to the recent assertions from Momento both here and on my Talk Page, I do not doubt his being a reliable source but strongly suggest that not being fully transparent about him where we can is paramount to hiding pertinent information. I'll leave it at that now and look forward to seeing what Olive proposes to move onto next with interest. Thanks.PatW (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we can move on to a summary of the reception section in Teachings of Prem Rawat as was discussed earlier and then adding that summary here? I'll look at it later today and start to work on it unless someone else wants to, or disagrees with adding the summary here. (olive (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC))
 * Regarding expanding what we know of sources such as Geaves, and giving the reader some of their background, I also think that text in Teachings of Prem Rawat stemming from Jan van der Lans could benefit from a reference that he was a Roman Catholic "religious psychologist" who trained as a priest, and whose even-handedness was questioned even by his own colleagues. Rumiton (talk) 04:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that would come across as highly over-paranoid. Geaves' background as a follower of the subject of the article is on a totally different scale of of bias. To view the 'even-handedness' of critical academics from other religious persuasions as being in the same league is surely wrong. My view is that known critics of Rawat who are former followers (maybe such as Mike Finch who has written a critical book called 'Without The Guru") should be clearly identified as ex-followers (as Geaves should be as a current and relatively high-profile follower) . But surely not every Tom, Dick or Harry whose religious persuasion might influence their views on Prem Rawat. The buck has to stop somewhere doesn't it? PatW (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Rumiton. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.Momento (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And paranoid? I don't see anything paranoid about telling the reader that the person who made such a critical set of statements on what was seen as an eastern religion, was being paid by a traditionally activist Catholic university to present the Roman Catholic viewpoint. A highly relevant fact for a living biography, it seems to me. Rumiton (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming a COI in van der Lans' case is not far fetched. I know personally of a theologian's dissertation (and subsequent career!) being dismissed because its subject was Rawat's teachings. OTOH Geaves is not dependent on Rawat or any of his organisations.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough, even the unconcealed Rawat-attack website (prem-rawat-bio.org) admits: "Professor Ron Geaves of Liverpool Hope University is the only academic of religion who has bothered to do any "research" or write any papers dealing with Prem Rawat for the past 20 years." In their context, it is presumably meant to underline Rawat's alleged lack of notability, but it unintentionally concedes to Geaves the edge in actual research. The quality of Geaves's actual work is not addressed.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Attempt to integrate Academic comments into Teachings section

 * First suggestion is to take the entire "Academic Coverage" section and relocate it into the "Teachings of Prem Rawat" article.
 * Then we can summarise it with two sentences at the beginning of the "Teachings" section of this article.
 * Something like - A number of scholars have defined Rawat as a "charismatic' leader", according to Max Weber's classifications, and that his authority and popularity is largely a result of his personal charisma. Others say that his authority is derived from the nature of his teachings and the benefits to the individuals applying them. Some scholars say his teachings have their basis in the North Indian Sant Mat or Radhasoami tradition,[7] which dismisses ritual and claims that true religion is a matter of loving and surrendering to God who dwells in the heart.[96][97] Ron Geaves, a professor in comparative religion studies [123] and a student of Rawat's, argues that this is not quite correct; referring to Rawat's own statements about his lineage,[98][99] he places Rawat and his father within the tradition established by Totapuri, which also gave rise to the Advait Mat movement.[99] Geaves argues that while the teachings within Totapuri's lineage have similarities with those of the Radhasoami tradition and developed in the same geographical area[100] they are nevertheless distinct. He adds that Rawat "is unusual in that he does not consider his lineage to be significant and does not perceive his authority as resting in a tradition."[98]
 * Prem Rawat claims that light, love, wisdom and clarity exist within each individual, and that the meditation techniques which he teaches, and which he learned from his father, are a way of accessing them. These techniques are known as the 'Knowledge'. In his public talks he quotes from Hindu, Muslim and Christian scriptures, but he relies on this inner experience for his inspiration and guidance.[101][102][103][104]
 * Before they receive the Knowledge, Rawat asks practitioners to promise to give it a fair chance and to stay in touch with him. He also asks that they not reveal the techniques to anyone else, but allow others to prepare to receive the experience for themselves.[105] Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses.[106][39]
 * Practitioners describe Knowledge as internal and highly individual, with no associated social structure, liturgy, ethical practices or articles of faith.[55] According to sociologist Alan E. Aldridge, Rawat says he offers practical ways to achieve spiritual tranquillity that can be used by anyone. Aldridge writes that Rawat originally aspired to bring about world peace, but now he places his attention on helping individuals rather than society.[107]


 * Comments.Momento (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not happy with the Aldridge quote, as it implies there has been a change in Rawat's goal. That is contentious and should be balanced by a statement that stresses the continuity of his message, surely we can find one (Geaves?).--Rainer P. (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree but let's get the charisma stuff in before we consider other changes.Momento (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I don't agree with this move and this is not what I meant when I suggested an integration of the Reception content into the the article. I was referring to the Reception content in the Teachings of Prem Rawat article and I think there was some agreement to bring a summary of that content here. As well I was referring to integrating Reception content line by line into the rest of the article, but this was only an observation from the way in which criticism has been integrated in other articles. I did agree this might work but looking at it now I don't see an advantage to the suggested moves.
 * Teaching and Academic are not the same thing. On has to do with Rawat's teaching the other with a response by academics. Nothing is gained by mashing these two topics together, and much is lost in terms of clarity. I apologize for coming late to this discussion. I've been sidetracked with other things but I will look closely later today. I would also suggest an invitation to the other editors on this article who are noticeably absent to make sure you have agreement for this kind of big change. This is a contentious article under arbitration and I'd suggest going slowly and making sure you have agreement for each move.
 * Per Rumiton's earlier adjustment to the Reception section of this article: I don't see that anything is lost or gained with the change you made, but charisma and leadership aren't the same as academic so I'll revert that part. Then I'd suggest actually summarizing the "academic" content from Teachings of Prem Rawat and moving it here, so that you do have an academic section. If no one does that I'll do it later today.
 * Once again I apologize for throwing a wrench in the works. I realize I may sound as if I am assuming ownership of this article . I'm not, but I am uninvolved and these are observations of someone with no interest at all in the topic so they may be useful. (olive (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC))
 * I appreciate your efforts. And agree that "Teaching and Academic are not the same thing" but I tried to make a start anyway. I'll wait for your proposal.Momento (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with Olive with regard to potential loss of clarity. Regarding Rainer's comments about the Aldridge quote being contentious - I don't believe Geaves' or Rawat have commented on his 'goals' in such a way as would contradict Aldridge. So I don't see how it can be contentious - with what?  It rather goes without saying that it would be specious to twist their words to suggest this. Aldridge's academic investigations have led him to the conclusion he illiterates and which warrants mentioning.  Clearly Rawat did, as he got older, stop proclaiming he was going to 'bring peace to the world' in the solemn prophetic manner he did as a youth, and instead spoke, less dramatically, more of (changing the world by) changing people's hearts' etc. Aldridge's comment makes perfect sense. PatW (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Rawat said in the Peace Bomb satsang "I declare that I will establish peace in this world". Some people have taken this to mean there will be 'peace everywhere in the world'. In the same talk Rawat said "And today I have to say with sorrow that the Knowledge which was once firmly established in this land of India has been slowly disappearing". Clearly "established" doesn't mean omnipresent.Momento (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So if I walked into a room and solemnly announced - "I declare I am going to paint this room pink" and then proceeded to paint one square inch in the corner pink, don't you think most sensible people could be forgiven for having assumed I'd meant that I was going to paint the whole room pink?  Also would you not agree that people who then say "Oh well clearly he meant just  a square inch" are fairly obviously apologists for a bad joke? PatW (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you said ""I declare I am going to establish pink in this room" then I would accept a single pink rose as full and complete fulfilment of your claim.Momento (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a nice example, but I recall that point being made months ago.


 * So reading Teachings now, it looks like Prem Rawat is included amongst the academic scholars. That needs attention soon, I think. Rumiton (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean. The scholarship section is mean to be the academic response to the teachings but I'm not attached to the placement of scholarship or even to the content itself.(olive (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC))
 * I just meant that including Religious scholarship as a subsection under his Teachings could be taken to mean his own religious scholarship. Perhaps if we make it something like Responses by religious scholars. Rumiton (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Titles and background of sources
Seems to me the religious background of sources like Van der Lans are just as pertinent as Geaves long-term studentship. He (VdL) is was a Catholic religious psychologist who trained as a Catholic priest. His core beliefs can be expected to be that all eastern religions and their leaders are of the devil. His petulant remarks and dire predictions need to be considered against that backdrop. Rumiton (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to add to the attribution from Van der Lans that he was employed as a religious psychologist at the Catholic University of Nijmegen. I will wait for Olive to return feeling better before going ahead. Rumiton (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It probably doesn't hurt to add this since there seems to be a history of adding this kind of context to the article. The dilemma is where to stop in an article. The important factor to consider is making sure the context informs the readers with out prejudicing them and so contributes to NPOV.(olive (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC))
 * OK. Rumiton (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Added the info. Rumiton (talk) 12:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Clumsy words
Such as precociousness. Precocity gives 4 times as many Google hits and is a much more elegant word. Shall we change? Rumiton (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree.Momento (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Rumiton (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * More clumsiness. Supporters said there is no conflict between worldly and spiritual riches. That Rawat did not advise anyone to "abandon the material world", but said it is our attachment to it that is wrong. These should be melded into one sentence or into two or more proper sentences. Rumiton (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Copy edit syntax/grammar: (How about this...)(olive (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC))

''Supporters said there is no conflict between worldly and spiritual riches, and that Rawat did not advise anyone to "abandon the material world", but said it is our attachment to it that is wrong. ''
 * Looks good. Rumiton (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And ✅ Rumiton (talk) 12:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The Lead (again)

 * I would like to rephrase "succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru (lit. Perfect Master) to millions of Indian followers. " because a) "father" suggests a hereditary succession, and b) the important issue is "guru" not leader of the Divine Light Mission which, as the article says, was controlled by his mother and others. So I propose "At the age of eight, Rawat succeeded his guru Hans Ji Maharaj as Satguru (lit. Perfect Master) to millions of Indian followers. He gained etc". And introduce DLM with "By the end of 1973, western versions of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) were active in 55 countries and tens of thousands of followers had been initiated". Momento (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * since this has become a familiy business no matter if sat pal or prem, the father should definitely stay as a first hand information. Surdas (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could say both, "Rawat succeeded his guru Hans Ji Maharaj, who was also his father, as Satguru (lit. Perfect Master) to millions of Indian followers."(olive (talk) 12:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC))
 * No problem with that either. If there are no other objections, and no one else does, I will make all these changes tomorrow. Rumiton (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * OK>Momento (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed as per above.Momento (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think Satguru translates to "Perfect Master." According to the Wikipedia article Perfect Master (Meher Baba) that was the way Meher Baba defined it.  I'm not trying to quibble, but don't ever remember Satguru being defined this way with Rawat, and Satguru was translated within this NRM as "true guru."   Sylviecyn (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Downton says this."Premies prostrated to them as they did to Guru Maharaj Ji even though in India and the United States he was the only one spoken of as 'satguru,' the Indian term for Perfect Master." (olive (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC))


 * Sylviecyn is correct, Downton is not. "Sat" is "true and "guru" is "guru". As in "sat" "sang" = "true" "company". I objected to it when WBB inserted it but to no avail. Satguru is overwhelmingly translated as "True Master/Teacher". As per Wki "Satguru (Sanskrit: सदगुरू) does not merely mean true guru. The term is distinguished from other forms of gurus, such as musical instructors, scriptural teachers, parents, and so on. The satguru is a title given specifically only to an enlightened rishi/sant whose life's purpose is to guide initiated shishya along the spiritual path, the summation of which is the realization of the Self through realization of God, who is omnipresent. A Satguru has some special characteristics that are not found in any other types of Spiritual Guru". Wiki says "Guru (Devanagari गुरु) is a Sanskrit term for "teacher" or "master", especially in Indian religions. The Hindu guru-shishya tradition is the oral tradition or religious doctrine transmitted from teacher to student". I have corrected the translation.Momento (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If what we are doing is simply translating then it is appropriate to translate accurately and not perpetuate a mistake.(olive (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC))
 * That kind of common sense thinking comes as a bit of a shock. It has been absent from these articles in the battleground atmosphere that was created. It all seemed to be "I will allow you to put something reasonable and truthful in the article if you will let me keep in my stupid and wrong stuff from a sloppy source that supports my POV by reflecting badly on the subject." Hopefully we can now proceed sensibly and cooperatively and those days will never return. As per the above example, Sylviecyn and Momento are obviously correct. There was never any doubt that this was a wrong translation but nothing could be done about it. Rumiton (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess the answer in moving forward is for the editors here to show to the powers that be, should they ever look in, that editors here  can regulate the article themselves in a stringent NPOV fashion and  with civility, so no one thinks they can come in and get away with the kind of behaviour you mention. I don't mean to be patronizing or soap boxing. I deal with contentious articles quite a bit so I have a sense of what you're saying.(olive (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC))

Poor grammar
Just noticed that According to Michael Gilbert, UTSA associate professor of criminal justice, "The constructive changes in behavior among participants have been noticed in our local Dominguez prison".[90] doesn't really make sense; either the quote marks or the "according to" are redundant. Best change might be to, Michael Gilbert, UTSA associate professor of criminal justice, stated that "The constructive changes in behavior among participants have been noticed in our local Dominguez prison".[90] Rumiton (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No objections? OK. Rumiton (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Little fixes

 * Chronology wrong in 1970-1973 section. Rawat went to England before the US. Fixed 07:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Unsourced material in 1970-1973 section. "A US-based Divine Light Mission was established in Denver, Colorado by Bob Mishler.[14][15" gives Downton "Sacred Journeys" and Price, Maeve (1979): "The Divine Light Mission as a social organization" as sources for this material. Downton does not mention Mishler or the "establishment" of DLM in Denver. Price is largely concerned with DLM in England and doesn't mention Mishler or Denver. Removed as unsourced and not significant enough to find a RS for it.Momento (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Unsourced material in 1974-1983 section. Meave Price is given as the source for these two sentences -"He dismissed Bob Mishler, co-founder of DLM, as International President. According to one source, he "resented the advice given to him by his chief subordinate" and dismissed him "when a clash of wills occurred".[72] In fact, MP doesn't mention "Bob Mishler", doesn't mention a "co-founder of DLM" and introduces this qualifying sentence "Maharaj Ji's version of this event is recorded in a British publication Six Lane Frreway printed around March 1977 which deals with a conference held in Atlantic City in December 1976. Maharaj Ji denied that he had sacked his international director but claimed he had changed his 'service' (p. 34)" Given that Rawat is on record as disputing MP's version of events I propose removing these two sentences to leave -

"In January 1976 Rawat encouraged them to leave the ashrams and discard Indian customs and terminology.[70] Rawat said that the organization had come between his devotees and himself.[71] He decentralized some decision making to local premie communities, while he maintained his status as the ultimate authority over spiritual and secular matters. The staff at the Denver headquarters were reduced from 250 to 80.[70]

Which covers the down sizing of the Denver HQ without introducing unsourced material and MP's self contradicting material.Momento (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If that stuff is unsourced it needs to be removed. It is strange that it has never been challenged before, but I will take your word for it. Rumiton (talk) 10:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to Downton Page 4 and Meave Price . I can't see in reference to Mishler etc. perhaps others can.Momento (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You appear to be right. Neither can I. Rumiton (talk) 06:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems incredible that someone would place Mishler in the article with false sources. I'll remove it.Momento (talk) 07:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly object that you are removing all this stuff so quickly - all with the apparent sanction of Olive who I was hoping might try and moderate properly. That's turning out not to be the case. All of this material about Bob Mishler was well-sourced and you need to look further and reinstate or revert! For example you might want to look at past discussions [like this]. This is turning out to be a massive opportunistic revision by followers of Prem Rawat who quite obviously have the intention of paring the article down and adding to it, in a selective way to promote Rawat. I have been watching and I am so appalled I cannot bring myself to enjoin any longer. I am also appalled that a supposedly sensible administrator Olive is encouraging this and not advising you slow down and go into more detail. Olive's lack of vigilance and apparent total unawareness of how sneaky you are being is now allowing the undoing of well-discussed and properly sourced material. It's a total mess. PatW (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest you check the sources Pat, and if there are concerns or mistakes dispute the changes. In a WP:BLP if content is not sourced it must be removed immediately, not should, but must.


 * I would suggest maybe slowing down a tad on making other decisions. I realize there are only two consistent editors on this page, maybe three, so this makes it easier to move ahead quickly. What you might do here is post concerns and suggested change and then wait for a period of time before making a change to allow other editors to come in and comment. Pat please do  not attack the editors here. Look at the sources carefully then if you have concerns discuss them. If you, all together, can't come to a decision try a NB. Deal with the edits not the editors. This page has been peaceful, I hope it can remain this way.(olive (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC))


 * As an aside I am not an admin. and for the record I am not gong to police this article even if I could or should. You have to deal with one edit at a time, with one change, not with what you or any editors feels are the motivations of the editor. I realize this article has a long history of contention, but I know you can't fix what's wrong by dealing with the editors. Pat one thing you may want to think about is that a fair amount of control on this article was maintained by one editor. He did a lot for Wikipedia, but also was not only topic banned, but banned from all NRMs with an indef ban from Wikipedia as a whole in a close to unanimous arbcom vote. Is it possible he made some mistakes here? The only way you can correct any problems with this article is to actively engage in editing and discussing it one point at a time. If each edit is discussed and agreement is reached on it, then the next and the next, you should end up with a neutral article. That can't happen if editors refuse to engage. I have way too much to deal with to take on another contentious article. I came here because I saw civility problems which always bother me.  The onus is on the editors here to tackle this one step at a time.(olive (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC))


 * Momento's change seems fine to me. This is pretty neutral material, and what Momento seems to be doing is making sure that while saying almost the same thing the content is directly sourced with out creating OR as was the case before. If this isn't accurate Momento has asked for input, which suggests he will amend his edits. (olive (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC))

Proposal for addition
Perhaps there should be a new section for awards.

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia - On September 28, 2012, at a forum called “7 Billion Reasons for Peace,” Prem Rawat was awarded the "Asia Pacific Brands Foundation Brand Laureate International Hall of Fame Lifetime Achievement Award" —their highest and most prestigious award. Reserved for statesmen and illustrious individuals whose actions and work have positively impacted the lives of people and the world at large, there have been only four other recipients: Nelson Mandela, Hillary Clinton, Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad (Prime Minister of Malaysia 1981-2003), and Heinz Fischer (President of Austria). Source: The Prem Rawat Foundation. http://www.tprf.org/en/news-and-features/message-of-peace-news/497-prem-rawat-receives-lifetime-achievement-award-in-malaysia. I hope no one will suggest this might have been faked by premies in a movie studio. :-) Regards --PremieLover (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration with past behaviors but we are trying to get rid of sarcasm from these discussions, as per this. Please comply. Rumiton (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding a separate awards section, seems to me it would be too promotional. Perhaps, like criticism, accolades should be spread within the article. Also I am sure you are aware that TPRF, as a primary source, is not acceptable for information that might be seen as "unduly self-serving." Rumiton (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This does seem to be a notable award. Perhaps it could go in the 1983-2000s section. How about: In September, 2012, in Malaysia, Prem Rawat was awarded the Asia Pacific Brands Foundation Lifetime Achievement Award, "for his contributions in championing and promoting global peace."
 * The silence around here is becoming a little eery. Over the last 30 days, this talk page has been looked at by an average of 73 people per day, quite a large pool of interested people. It can only be assumed that no one has a strong enough objection to the above proposed changes to say anything. Working on that assumption, I shall go ahead and add this new information. Rumiton (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the sarcasm. All world personalities (singers, actors, etc.) have an Award section. I see no reason why Prem Rawat cannot have one when, now or in the future, there are enough awards to justify it. But I support the inclusion anywhere anyway. It is not a minor award, just see the few other people who got it. 73 persons per day seems to be a success, whether they are the same or different persons, it means this intellectual tennis has fans. I hope not all humouristic comments will be considered sarcasm :-)PremieLover (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * These articles are under probation because of past incivility and bad editing practices. Please continue to participate, but with great care not to stir everything up again. No one gains when that happens and no one finds it funny. With sobriety and restraint on both sides we might and up with an article that all can live with. Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

If there is anger there is no humour, if there is humour there is no anger--PremieLover (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't really agree with that. What one person perceives as a harmless joke can make another person feel they are being taunted and jeered at. It depends on the level of frustration they are feeling at the time. I have been on both sides of this divide myself. Rumiton (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Religious scholarship
I summarized the scholarship section from the Teachings of Prem Rawat and added it here as I said I'd do, but I'm not convinced its not redundant content so if anyone objects just remove it and move it here, or let me know and I'll be happy to remove it, and or move it here for further discussion. I'm not attached to it in anyway. In general I feel the article is not well organized as there does seem to be a lot of overlapping material. I'll probably move on to other articles but if I can help at any time with an outside opinion I'd be happy to.(olive (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC))
 * I don't believe it's in the least redundant. As Rumiton pointed out above, Prem Rawat has not changed the essence of his teachings over the years, although the superficial packaging has changed considerably. As everyone knows I'm for including more information rather than cutting out and changing the wording. The endless rephrasing of existing info is not a good way forward imho and is just a way of introducing the POV of editors. Let the comments of scholars and newspaper reporters stand, with their their own choice of words wherever possible.  It's nice to see relevant criticism return to the article such as Paul Schnabel/Van der Lans' pertinent observations.PatW (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As per my edit notes, I have made grammatical and format corrections and added Downton the most important of the Rawat scholars. LittleOlive, are you going to add the sources?

Momento (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So Momento, you have now added another highly selective positive quote to further outweigh the minimal representation of critical quotes here. What Olive is probably not entirely aware of is how these 'scholarly' quotes have already been thoroughly 'cleaned' of the large amount criticism offered up by the likes of Downton. Why for example should not some other of Downton's scholarly observations be omitted? ...such as - "Many of the luxuries surrounding America's new gurus are gifts from their followers. Guru Maharaj Ji's not alone among the new gurus who are surrounded by material comforts. A casual glance at the lifestyles of other gurus in America does not turn up any signs of poverty. This raises an obvious question: Why is it that gurus insist on their followers becoming detached from the material world, while they seem to be completely immersed in it?"  or  "Yet, while many people feel gurus have accumulated more than their share of wealth, their followers believe they are getting no more than they deserve. From the premie point of view, for instance, Guru Maharaj Ji's opulent lifestyle seems in harmony with their view of him as the Lord. They want him to live like the king they feel he is. Idealizing him as they do, they are more than happy to supply him with luxuries."  or..."From this perspective, Guru Maharaj Ji's opulence can be understood as a natural outgrowth of his followers' need to idealize him and to set him at a sufficiently great distance so that beliefs in his extraordinary powers are preserved. In short, premies have a stake in maintaining his luxurious lifestyle."  or "While we can partially explain Guru Maharaj Ji's lifestyle in terms of collective dynamics, another point of view would question why he has accepted the luxuries premies have gladly given to him. Several explanations could be offered: that he is following tradition; that he recognizes his followers' needs to elevate him to a point where he becomes the ideal to emulate; that he sees no conflict between his lifestyle and his spiritual mission; and that he is not attached to the comforts surrounding him. Of course, there is also the possibility that he is ambitious and materialistic, as so many people believe." or..."Believing the guru to be a saint, premies were ready to conform to his wishes (as well as they could), while many lost the capacity to criticize him. Even during the height of the public scandals which hit the Mission in its formative period, I did not hear premies express even one critical comment about the guru. Given their views of him as the Lord, it was as clearly outside of the realm of possibility for them to oppose or criticize him in any way, as for Moses to have told God that he wanted him to edit the Ten Commandments."  or "Devotion to Guru Maharaji seems similar to the type of unquestioning affection children feel for their parents during the time before adoloscence when they are emotionally merged with them. This is one of the reasons that, once formed, a follower's strong emotional bond with a leader is so hard to break, especially when the leader is viewed as Divine."  or"I believe there is a time when the devotee's autonomy from a guru, like independence from one's parents, should be achieved, otherwise surrender remains only an instrument of social control to serve the guru's ends, rather than a means of bringing the person into an individual relationship to God and the world. The emotional disengagement of children from their parents seems to take a natural course, but for the adults who have emotionally merged with a guru becoming more independent must be more conscious and deliberate, A danger is that, by idealizing the guru, the devotee preserves the distance between them so that it always appears as if more needs to be done. This of course provides the devotee with the rationale for the continuation of dependence on him. Some followers may be able to face the trauma of separation, while others may have to be pushed away when the time is right. If both the guru and devotee are psychologically or socially dependent on the relationship, then neither are likely to initiate a rift and the devotee may become permanently fixed in that regressive state, never to go beyond the role of obediant child."PatW (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Littleolive said she was summarising the "Scholars" section of the "Teachings" article. The "scholars" section contains 712 words of commentary from George D. Chryssides, Ron Geaves, Stephen J. Hunt, James V. Downton, Marc Galanter (MD) and Paul Schnabel. To leave Downton out, which I'm sure was accidental, is to leave out one sixth of the material being summarised . I have corrected that error by giving Downton one sixth of the summary..Momento (talk) 01:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thus making an unbalanced section even worse. That's some correction. Do you think Downton's critical comments should be represented for balance? If not then why not? PatW (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you'll never get a 50:50 positive critical mix because most scholars and most sources report on Rawat from a NPOV.Momento (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Downton belongs in that summary, I missed it, and yes I'll add the sources. Apologies for that. Very tired today and off to bed right now with a migraine coming on, I'll get to the sources tomorrow night. My fault entirely. I don't see how  the section can be unbalanced. I simply summarized what is in the mother article and in fact left more content in the summary on the pejorative content than on the positive. So I'm mystified. (olive (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC))
 * Take it easy Littleolive, headaches are a symptom of editing this article.Momento (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But if it is a true migraine, my deepest and sincerest sympathy. Horrible things. Rumiton (talk) 03:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the above excerpt from Downton, the introduction to his statement and his conclusion have been omitted -- obviously an oversight, as these were the critical parts of his analysis. After thinking about the reason for the gifts people gave to Maharaji he goes on to say, '''It is difficult to understand the motives behind Guru Maharaj Ji's lifestyle, just as it is impossible to know whether he is, as premies believe, an authentic saint. I have thought about this issue a great deal and have come to the conclusion that there is no way of knowing, by objective measures, whether the guru is authentic or not. That can only be determined subjectively, for, as one premie told me, "You can only see Guru Maharaj Ji with your heart." Instead of considering the guru's motives and authenticity, perhaps it would be more constructive to ask whether his followers have benefited from their relationship to him and what impact his efforts are having on our society.''' Then he gives some examples of the changed lives and behaviors which left him in no doubt that they and society had indeed benefited. Rumiton (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I won't get to the sources tonight. Sorry. Yes it is a real migraine. I get them every now and then, this one is one of the bad ones. (olive (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC))
 * I've inserted the sources. Take a break.Momento (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have sat with people who were going through those things. I'm impressed that you can even type. Rumiton (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm feeling much better. Thanks for the good thoughts...:O) And thanks for Momento for adding the sources. I have no idea why I overlooked transferring them them. Maybe the migraine coming on.
 * Per Pat's comment above: I've checked to see if I can get an online view of this book and I can't. So I'd suggest a second look into this source by those who have the book, with assumptions of good faith "O) to make sure the content added in both this article and the Teachings of Prem Rawat truly represents the general tone of the book. I simply summarized content that was already in place, and with out the source feel it wouldn't be appropriate for me to make source-based changes to either article.(olive (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC))
 * I think it would be good if you could take a look for yourself. Try this . Rumiton (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Thanks.(14:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC))
 * If you search for the words "an authentic saint" that will land you pretty much in the centre of the discussion. Rumiton (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC) The author rambles a bit, but from page 154 onwards he presents his observations of Knowledge practitioners. Rumiton (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

No worries, its a quick read.(olive (talk) 03:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC))
 * Does anyone now have anything they wish to add to the way Downton's findings are expressed in the articles? No POV cherrypicking please, it needs to be something that fairly describes his considered views. Rumiton (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm still reading and would be happy to add something if needed in the next days.(olive (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC))
 * I won't get to this now despite my reading and now owning Peace Is Possible :O) and think its best to leave this to experts. If you ever need an outside  opinion I'm glad to help out. Just let me know.(olive (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC))

Dealing with Sources/Downton

 * Concerning Downton:The book I read online is about a study and seems it should be related as such. I don't think what is in the article really does justice to the book, not whether the content in the article is pejorative or positive, but it just doesn't indicate much about Downton's research. I think what you have to decide is whether you are representing the authors in terms of scholarship and if you are then are you doing so in a comprehensive way? This is the way one should write about the scholarship seems, that is, summarize the publications of each academic giving a sense of how they saw the topic. Alternately you can lay out a topic and collect information on that topic making sure to get a good overview of the mainstream in that area. Just some thoughts on how you might proceed further with this article.(olive (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC))
 * I thought, at this stage, it was better to insert what we had in the Teachings article rather than start to reevaluate/rewrite Downton.Momento (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. You did just what had been decided to do and that is summarize and move content from the Teachings article. My comment wasn't meant as a criticism merely a way of thinking about the future if needed or wanted. I come out of an environment where there is a lot of brainstorming and improvising going on and so I tend to do the same here. Always ideas never definitive in any way. Apologies for any sense of criticism.(olive (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC))
 * No sense of criticism Littleolive. After 7 years here, your comments are cool zephyrs of frangipani.Momento (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I missed this part of the thread until now. Cool zephyrs of frangipani. Smiley.svg If anyone described anything I wrote in such terms, I would consider myself praised indeed. Cool zephyrs of frangipani. Oh yes, that is nice. Take a bow Olive! :-)) Rumiton (talk) 09:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I just saw this actually as I read over the talk page. Gosh, thank you, I don't feel I did anything special to say the least, but the nicest Wikipedia comment I've ever received.(olive (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC))

Malaysian Lifetime Achievement Award
This was today. We can keep an eye on Malaysian sources over the next few days. Rumiton (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * They are starting to come in. Here is one from SwitchUp TV, "Malaysia's leading English language newspaper." Interestingly, the voiceover says he is the 5th person to achieve this award, after Hillary Clinton, Dr Mahathir Mahommed, Nelson Mandela and one other (?). Rumiton (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The one other is Heinz Fischer, current President of Austria. I could not find out, exactly for what he got the award. It is not mentioned on his personal or official webmaterial, nor in his WP-articles in .de and .en--Rainer P. (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW: Mahathir bin Mohamad was Prime Minister of Malaysia 1981 to 2003. He gained international attention last not least for his antisemitic attitude (not insinuating that that's what he got the award for! Clinton and Mandela are unsuspicious witnesses).--Rainer P. (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Giving Mahathir a Peace Award? Doesn't inspire confidence in me.Momento (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Trusting the legend on the lectern, it's an award for "branding" - whatever that means in this context. And remember, Jassir Arafat, for one, was given the Nobel Peace Price.--Rainer P. (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Asia Pacific Brands Foundation defines "branding" broadly. From their website : "Brands are not confined to just products and services but include individuals...These personalities are visionaries, statesmen and captains of industries who have made a profound impact on the environment that we live in – politically, economically and socially...The APBF takes cognizance of the role of these individuals and their contributions to society. The BrandLaureate Brand Personality Awards is initiated to honor these successful individuals whose contributions have helped the nation to grow, enhanced the well being of society and make our lives more comfortable." Prem Rawat seems to be the only one of the 5 Lifetime Achievement Awardees whose award was exclusively for peace. Rumiton (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't get that far. Very impressive.Momento (talk) 07:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * His presentation reads: "For his contributions in championing and promoting global peace." I have asked APBF what the other 4 presentations read, as it could be relevant to the notability of this award or to how we represent it in the articles (if we do.) Rumiton (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * APBF have not responded. It is remarkable how little respect we important Wikipedia editors are accorded in these lagging-behind parts of the information connected world. Rumiton (talk) 10:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Energetically serve his followers

 * Whilst I appreciate correcting grammar the quote is accurate and sourced - "The Sat Guru continues to energetically serve his followers. Flying to major cities around the world almost continually in his private jet, this dynamic wielder Vishnu's discus, dressed in a Western business suit that belies his Eastern background, has taken his message to more than 50 countries, giving sermons to groups ranging form 1,000 to 10,000. In the past two years alone, he has given over 100 programs in 37 cities throughout the world including New York, London, Paris, Kuala Lumpur, Rome, Delhi, Sydney, Tokyo, Caracas and Los Angeles". I think the idea the Rawat "serves his followers" is important.Momento (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It could also be seen as repetitive and promotional. I think Becritical's change is something of an improvement. Rumiton (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Rumiton.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It is for me strange to call it "his private jet" when he seldom or never uses it for personal flights, but almost always or always to go to see his followers. In my almost humble opinion, any other description similar to "the jet of his organization", would be more accurate and reflecting reality.


 * Do you have any evidence he does not use it for personal use or that more sources refer to "the jet of his organisation" than "his jet"? Do you know the name of the organisation that leases the plane?PatW (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * How about "leased executive jet" which is a more accurate and NPOV description of the plane.Momento (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I can do without the quote although I believe the idea of "the Guru serving his followers" shows a more accurate understanding of how the Guru is seen in India as opposed to the jaundiced view of the west. But "Rawat continued to speak in major cities around the world almost continually" . "Continued to speak almost continually"! Surely Becritical can do better than that.Momento (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Leased executive Jet is no doubt true but what source says this? PatW (talk) 06:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Can we get one thing straight?
Momento sarcastically quips above - "I understand your anger that the truth about Rawat's actions in the pieing incident, which shows him to have behaved in an exemplary manner, is now in the article instead of deliberately omitted." I strongly object to and refute Momento's insinuation that I am angry about the 'truth' being presented here. What I am concerned about is that Rawat's historic and well-sourced reception in the media, the voluminous criticism and ridicule he received, should not be played down. His past negative press reception far outweighs the positive and until he gets more legitimate new positive coverage that balance should be reflected here. I have no objection to the inclusion of his new awards and prizes etc. if the sources can be shown to be reliable and not just press-releases by the organisation that promotes him. In fact the more reliable current press reception we can get the better as there is so little. PatW (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I also object to Rumiton's comments ... I think ex-followers have just as much right to influence this article as followers. Right Rumiton?PatW (talk) 11:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed that comment and replaced it with something a lot milder. It was written in a moment of strong feelings. Rumiton (talk) 11:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC) But frankly, no one "has the right" to influence this article, a point you seem to have trouble grasping. We can only look at sources, evaluate them for reliability, and present the best summary of the best sources we can. Rumiton (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant influence the article in that respect of course. Equal rights to edit OK? Perhaps you should do the right thing and find just one of these "obnoxious claims have been refuted by the facts time and again". Put up or shut up. PatW (talk) 11:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I also object to Momento and Rumiton's contrasting attitude towards visiting admins which not only has resulted in a little embarrassed eye-lid fluttering from Olive whom Momento flattered almost to the point of waxing poetic, but also could be interpreted as taunting towards me, since Olive's primary action here was to admonish my behaviour.PatW (talk) 11:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I also object to Rumiton deleting my comments above where I quote him " "PatW there certainly is something around here that can make people "physically sick," and it is the stench from your putrescent attitude. You spend your time on a forum where any personal attack against the subject of this article, no matter how unfounded or unfair, will be applauded, and the attacker congratulated for his "courage in speaking the truth", and you have been trying for years to turn Wikipedia into an extension of that. Your obnoxious claims have been refuted by the facts time and again, but you persist in them, sounding increasingly desperate. You have been warned by administrators whom you ignored. You have threatened to boycott WP in protest many times, but you never do. Regarding this case, what could Prem Rawat and his officials have done differently? They, not the police, found out who the alleged criminals were and held them for the police to arrest. They waited, but the police never showed up. What would you have done then? Tied them up in the basement and tortured them? And (this is my OR) Fakiranand sent a letter to the international DLM offices urging everyone to leave Prem Rawat, claiming that a "true spiritual master" would have been grateful for his actions in defending him and would have protected him. Do you agree with him?"PatW (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I deleted my own comments, not yours. Rumiton (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes well I thought it worth demonstrating that if I am guilty of incivility then so are others.  Notwithstanding that Mr Blade is now itching to have some fun with his sword. PatW (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm working my way through all the content issues, which will take me a little while, but I'm not going to use a couple ill-considered comments as a bludgeon towards anyone. However, it seems like it's been more than that; PatW and Momento in particular need to cool it. If it goes on any further, I'll start using topic bans. Back to the voluminous reading above... (not a complaint, I'd rather have more than less to go on) The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 14:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The Pie incident + Affluent lifestyle

 * It bothers me that the Detroit pie incident and its aftermath is missing important material. The article says "In August 1973, Rawat was hit by a pie thrown by a person who was later attacked by followers. Rawat expressed shock and regret at the beating and concern for the victim's welfare. Incredibly while this material in bold is taken from a news article ""Guru wants to Help" it completely omits  "When local members of the Divine Light Mission heard of this incident and became aware that Divine Light Mission personnel or devotees of Guru Maharaj Ji said to be a 15-year-old perfect master and spiritual head of the Divine Light Mission, might be involved, they notified the young Guru at his residence in Los Angeles. Guru Maharaj Ji immediately requested that Divine Light Mission conduct a full investigation to see if any information concerning the parties responsible could be brought to light. As a result of this investigation the suspected assailants were located. They confessed their part in the incident and offered to turn themselves in. The local authorities were immediately notified and the suspected assailants are now being held in protective custody" but the police failed to arrest them. Then, according to The New York Times "This lack of action by the Detroit police was attributed by some to Halley's radical politics". Rawat's actions went far beyond simply "expressing shock and regret at the beating and concern for the victim's welfare" and that should be explained.Momento (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you might suggest a new version that gives a fairer picture? Rumiton (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The DLM article contains this "While Rawat was at the Detroit City Hall in August to receive a testimonial resolution praising his work, he was slapped him in the face with a shaving cream pie. Rawat responded by saying that he did not want his attacker arrested or hurt, but the reporter was attacked by two men a few days later and seriously injured.[23][24] When local members heard of the incident they notified Rawat who requested that the DLM conduct a full investigation. The assailants, one of them an Indian mahatma, were identified. They admitted their part in the incident and offered to turn themselves in. The Chicago police were immediately notified.[25] The Detroit police declined to initiate extradition proceedings, variously claiming that they were unable to locate the assailants, or that the cost of extraditing them from Chicago to Detroit made it impractical. This lack of action by the Detroit police was attributed by some to Halley's radical politics". Momento (talk) 08:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's quite long. If it takes this much space to provide a fair picture, perhaps a separate article might be warranted. If the incident isn't considered notable enough for that, maybe this article shouldn't concentrate on it too much either. Rumiton (talk) 09:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting situation. Another case of editors adding carefully selecting material that suits their POV. whilst ignoring material that doesn't suit there POV. The Smuggling incident at 142 words and Rawat's grand lifestyle at 186 words are examples where what could be said in 50 words is bloated by editors adding more words to counter someone else's words. I suggested a while ago to reduce the Smuggling to the minimum. Something like - "On arrival, Indian customs claimed a suitcase containing cash and jewelry had not been properly declared, prompting the Indian government to investigate the finances of Rawat and the DLM. Charges were never filed and the Indian government later issued an apology" which is only 41 words. If others are happy to reduce the Smuggling and Rawat's affluent lifestyle to about 50 words, I'll try to get the pie story down to 50.Momento (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Brevity is good stuff, but only if the situation can be fairly described in so few words. See how you go. Rumiton (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see Momento's draft proposal too. I'm open.  Sylviecyn (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a start on Rawat's affluent lifestyle in 82 words - "Rawat's affluent lifestyle was a source of controversy in the early 1970s with some media reports saying that Rawat "lived more like a king than a Messiah". Critics said that his lifestyle was supported by the donations of followers; his followers countered that there is no conflict between worldly and spiritual riches. And while the press reports focused on Rawat's expensive automobiles, houses and "opulent lifestyle”; Rawat said, "I have something far more precious to give them than money and material things – I give peace". I have left out - "the movement appeared to exist only to support Rawat's "opulent existence"... Rawat did not advise anyone to "abandon the material world", but said it is our attachment to it that is wrong... ''such as Rolls-Royces, Mercedes-Benz limousines...some of them gifts) ..."Maharaj Ji's luxuries are gifts from a Western culture whose fruits are watches and Cadillacs," a spokesman said.[57] Some premies said that he did not want the gifts, but that people gave them out of their love for him.[61] They saw Rawat's lifestyle as an example of a lila, or divine play, which held a mirror to the "money-crazed and contraption-collecting society" of the West. Momento (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not clear. Are you suggesting we leave out the latter parts in italics? Rumiton (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. I propose ""Rawat's affluent lifestyle was a source of controversy in the early 1970s with some media reports saying that Rawat "lived more like a king than a Messiah". Critics said that his lifestyle was supported by the donations of followers; his followers countered that there is no conflict between worldly and spiritual riches. And while the press reports focused on Rawat's expensive automobiles, houses and "opulent lifestyle”; Rawat said, "I have something far more precious to give them than money and material things – I give peace".Momento (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * And I propose this for the Pie incident - "In August 1973 while Rawat was in Detroit to receive an award, he was slapped in the face with a shaving cream pie by Pat Halley, a radical journalist. Rawat said that he did not want his attacker arrested or hurt, but Halley was attacked a few days later and seriously injured. When local members heard of the incident they notified Rawat who requested that DLM conduct a full investigation. Two followers were identified as the assailants and the police were immediately notified but the Detroit police declined to initiate extradition proceedings. This lack of action by the Detroit police was attributed by some to Halley's radical politics". 105 words Momento (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This doesn't read neutrally enough to me. Particularly the last sentence sounds weasely. The only working source needs a joining fee, so do you have the original source wording? Rumiton (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to drop the last sentence but I thought it necessary to explain why no one was arrested and charged. Please feel free to "neutralise" the paragraph. Here's the source material -

Page 2 - Section B – c

Pat Halley, the notorious pie thrower, was brutally attacked in Detroit by two assailants who then fled the scene. When local members of the Divine Light Mission heard of this incident and became aware that Divine Light Mission personnel or devotees of Guru Maharaj Ji, said to be a 15-year-old perfect master and spiritual head of the Divine Light Mission, might be involved, they notified the young Guru at his residence in Los Angeles.

Guru Maharaj Ji immediately requested that Divine Light Mission conduct a full investigation to see if any information concerning the parties responsible could be brought to light. As a result of this investigation the suspected assailants were located. They confessed their part in the incident and offered to turn themselves in. The local authorities were immediately notified and the suspected assailants are now being held in protective custody.

Local and national officials of Divine Light Mission say they are extremely shocked and appalled by the occurance of this event; for the brutal action taken is in direct opposition to all that the Mission stands for and to the expressed wishes of Guru Maharaj Ji. The young Guru himself said he was amazed when the news was conveyed to him. He expressed his regret at the incident and concern for the welfare of Mr. Halley. He further extended his regrets and condolences to Pat Halley's family and friends with the assurance that Divine Light Mission wishes to help in whatever way possible and to see that persons responsible for this event are brought to justice. Momento (talk) 08:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Take out the word "immediately", and I think you have captured the tone and content pretty well. My concern with the lack of police action comment was really just the phrase "attributed by some." The reader is entitled to ask, "Who were these some?" What is the source for that statement? Rumiton (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ken Kelley in a Penthouse article "Whereupon a curious inertia overtook both the Detroit police and the Divine Light Mission. The police said the cost of extraditing the assailants from Chicago to Detroit overruled that possibility. Considering Halley's political persuasion, that was not too surprising."Momento (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, we know who one of the some was, at least. Perhaps this journalist was the original source of the speculation. I see numerous Google hits for the same wording "attributed by some...", but this is really only a snide insinuation. Perhaps we can say "There was speculation that the failure by the Detroit Police to extradite the assailants may have been connected with Halley's radical politics" and give the Penthouse article as a reference. Rumiton (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine with me.Momento (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * All right. Lest we be guilty of too much haste, let us wait another 2 days to see if there are any source-based objections. Rumiton (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Since we already have "but the Detroit police declined to initiate extradition proceedings" how about "There was speculation that the lack of action by the Detroit police may have been connected with Halley's radical politics". Momento (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good, but let's wait for other input. Rumiton (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been a week. It's surely one of the worst edits in the article. Rawat went far beyond "expressing shock and regret at the beating and concern for the victim's welfare". He said that "he did not want his attacker arrested or hurt" and requested that DLM conduct a full investigation which identified the assailants. In it goes. Momento (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks fair to me.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the tone and amount of detail of the source, it's hard to see how anyone might object, but stranger things have happened around here. Rumiton (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you mentioned that the Mahatma who took part in the beating was secreted off to Germany where he continued his work as a Mahatma for Rawat? There's a reliable sources for this I believe. As you know Rawat was criticised for his handling of the affair and what you are doing is trying to paint as favourable picture of Rawat as possible. Why don't you go looking for some of the more embarrassing stuff to add? Well...that's fairly obvious I guess. I object but I'm not going to bother arguing about it anymore as this article is starting to make me feel physically sick eevry time I look in. Hey Olive..why don't you go get some more 'neutral' people to come weigh in here...oh I forgot...they're only interested in admonishing people who are uncivil. What a joke.PatW (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * An afterthought...do you two seriously think that your persistent omission of critical views is a demonstration of your ability to be neutral?  How can we be expected to engage in sensible civil discussion when you deliberately omit readily available alternate critical views and only insert selected pro-Rawat bits? I don't you realise how unbelievable aggressive and arrogant your comments sound - "In it goes" etc..almost as if you can now do what you want however many lies of omission you perpetuate. Let me now state that the only reason I make these general statements rather than engage on specific points is as a PROTEST to your never accepting a sound argument and your determination to win simply by tiring out all opposition. So I'm not going to offer any help here any more. Let's see what kind of neutral article you can make. I reserve the right however to chime in from time to time just to remind you that what you're creating looks like a complete biased mess to anyone who is reasonable informed about Rawat . PatW (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your anger that the truth about Rawat's actions in the pieing incident, which shows him to have behaved in an exemplary manner, is now in the article instead of deliberately omitted. It is important to know that Rawat was forgiving of his attacker but swift to bring Halley's attackers to the attention of the police. The fact that the police didn't arrest them is beyond Rawat's control. As for your claim that the mahatma was "secreted off to Germany", there is one RS that says that months after the police refused to arrest Fakiranand he was reported to be in Germany but no RS that says Rawat sent him. On the other hand there are numerous reliable sources that say Rawat wasn't in legal control of DLM until four months later after the attack when he turned sixteen and then finally  split with his mother in May '74 when "Most of the mahatmas either returned to India or were dismissed". And as you know PatW, Fakiranand was one of the mahatmas that sided with Mata Ji and Satpal against Rawat and continued to serve Satpal until recently. And yes Rawat has been criticised for not arresting the assailants just as he has been criticised for his voice, his weight, his complexion, his diet, his teachings etc etc. Momento (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Whether he was sent to Germany or not, what could they have done with the guy that they didn't do? Rightly or wrongly, he wasn't wanted by the police in the US but he was obviously in considerable opprobrium with everyone else. Their dilemma was pretty clear and their actions hard to criticise, even with hindsight. Rumiton (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me remind you Momento that it is not I who have EVER wanted ANY information removed. Your puerile taunt that I'm angry because of your inclusion is just another example of your twisting people's words who are actually angry at what you omit. What you're totally failing to capture is the spirit of the way Rawat and this incident was publicly received at the time. Even Penthouse ran an article on this as well as [many other publications] at the time.

For a start..what about this from Sophie Collier in her book 'Soul Rush' - "His itinerary was packed for the summer's tour. He had public programs in several major cities, TV appearances, and some appointments to receive awards and keys to various cities, as well as more intimate premie programs for the membership only. Things were going well until he got to Detroit, where he was to receive a civic citation. After he accepted the award, an underground-newspaper reporter came rushing up to Maharaj Ji and, in what the reporter described as "a protest against God," hit Maharaj Ji in the face with a shaving cream pie. This in itself was not a tragedy. But what happened afterward was. Two premies sought out the pie-thrower, Pat Halley, and creamed him with a steel pipe. This was a dreadful and pathetic example of fanaticism at work. What makes it worse is that I know, from a very good source, that one of the premie assailants was a mahatma, a DLM figure who initiated many thousands of U.S. premies in 1971 - 1973. Maharaj Ji did not know of this mahatma's plans beforehand, and afterward when the incident came to his attention Maharaj Ji stripped the mahatma of his rank and urged him to turn himself in to the police. However, the mahatma did not follow this advice and quietly slipped out of the country. '''The other assailant, Bob Mishler believes, was an American and still even today lives in a DLM ashram. If this is true I feel Maharaj Ji is at fault. He should have pursued this matter more aggressively and made sure the perpetrators were apprehended and tried in a court of law.'''" p163 Soul Rush by Sophie collier Also this apparently from the New York Times ... "The psychological violence that results from the constant repression of deviant ideas can lead to the same bellicose intolerance that overtook the pilgrims and Mormons after they established their religious hegemonies. And the line between psychological and physical violence is as thin as a junkie's needle. Last August in Detroit, Pat Halley, an underground newspaper reporter, threw a shaving-cream pie into the face of Guru Maharaj Ji as an act of guerrilla theater. One week later he was nearly bludgeoned to death with a blackjack by two members of the Divine Light Mission, who gained access to his apartment by pretending they wanted to reveal to him the Guru's secret initiation rite. Offically the Mission announced that the two assailants were not true devotees, that devotees could not perform such an act, that they had been banished from the organization, and that they would be turned over to the Detroit police to face felonious-assault charges. But in fact the record shows that neither assailant - both of whom are extremely prestigious members of the Mission - has been removed from the Guru's good graces. One of them, a mahatma, or high priest, charged with initiating new members into the organization. was "shipped off to Germany" to continue his work. The other, an American who is considered the reincarnation of St. Peter, has eluded the law with equal success. While researching a book, I queried devotees about the incident and the organization's deliberate prevarication, and was given one of two replies. A surprising number of devotees knew that the principal assailant was a mahatma and that the organization had lied, but it was irrelevant: "Guru Maharaj Ji is God and he knows exactly what he's doing. It is not within my ability to question it, because he is perfect and everything he does is perfect." Those followers who claimed ignorance of the mahatma's role were completely unperturbed: "I was freaked out when I heard about the incident and my mind says it's strange that a mahatma performed the act, but everything is one gigantic game that Guru Maharaj Ji is testing our loyalty with." When I replied to the latter devotee that Abraham, too, was tested by God when told to slit the throat of his son Isaac, but that an angel at least stopped the knife from penetrating at the crucial moment, I was told that the act of faith itself is the determining factor, not any physical consequences, "I would slit your throat in a moment if Guru Maharaj Ji told me to," said the devotee. "I would do anything Guru Maharaj Ji told me to." Guru MaharaJ Ji instills in his followers a mind-control device that would surely make the Central Intelligence Agency envious, Called "The Knowledge," it is a combination of several ancient yoga meditation techniques that members must practice several times a day, and particularly when the mind threatens to reassert its rational thrust. So when the Guru's ostensible message of peace and love is overshadowed by the violent practice that can accompany it, a follower can purge the mind of all contradictions by meditating them into oblivion." Copyright The New York Times Originally published January 19, 1974 PatW (talk) 09:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * RE your first paragraph - Sophie Collier was obviously not aware that the police were informed but didn't take action. Re your second paragraph speaks for itself.Momento (talk) 09:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense Momento. This is not about what she did not say. The point is she adds info. She informs that Rawat told the Mahatma to turn himself in but that he did not do so, and that she faults Rawat for a number of given reasons. Also it seems that the article 'Guru Wants To Help" (the legitimacy of which is presumably the basis of your entire argument) is based on a Divine Light Mission press release. So there is the suggestion that this is from a Primary Source which in itself is bound to be biased..and in this case questionable in terms of the truth. How careful are you being to present a fair picture? Not very it would seem.PatW (talk) 10:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * a Divine Light Mission press release?Momento (talk) 10:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I just read that and will look into further.PatW (talk) 10:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You said above your quote was from this source right? "Page 2 - Section B – Sun News – Las Cruces, New Mexico - Wednesday, August 22, 1973" - why have you removed that just now? Or did I remove it accidentally whilst trying to copy paste? Apologies if I did. 11:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't see what was going on above. All editors please be more careful in copying etc. Regarding the long quote above from an article by Ken Kelley, it appears to be an opinion piece, and its existence can certainly be summarised somewhere in the article. It does not represent itself as a record of facts, and the reputation of its author bears examination. According to this and this  (if it is indeed the same person), Ken Kelley died in jail in 2008 with further charges of possession of child pornography hanging over him. The article he wrote (I hope PatW was not aware of this) is copyrighted to the New York Times because that company bought out the small radically inclined paper he originally wrote for. The first article, from the Berkeley Daily Planet comments that Many papers like his, once heralded as the way to attract younger readers to print, have been swallowed up by national chains more interested in sensationalism than in news. Rumiton (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * [Here] it says that Ken Kelly writes in 'The New York Review of Books" Dec 1973 - "The DLM national headquarters in Denver released a statement to the press which read in part - The Guru Immediately requested that the Divine Light Mission conduct a full investigation ... As a result of this investigation the assailants were located, confessed their part in the incident, and offered to turn themselves in. The local authorities were immediately notified and the suspected assailants are now being held in protective custody. The young Guru ... extends his regards to Pat Haley's family and friends with the assurance that the Divine Light Mission wishes to help in whatever way possible to see that the persons responsible are brought to justice." There is a lot more [here] but this first source does seem to suggest that Momento's source is based on a DLM press release doesn't it? PatW (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There are press releases and press releases. This one was released as a statement of the attitude of the DLM and its members to the attack. The facts it gives are universally accepted, and the four sources quoted in the article as it stands support them. Rumiton (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK so do you agree that there should be some indication that there was criticism of the way Rawat dealt with the matter in this section? Olive? Blade? Cynthia? Momento? Anyone?PatW (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a substantial differenceI between including the informed criticism of scholars (and criticism that scholars have thought important enough to warrant repeating) and the criticism of writers like Ken Kelley and magazines like "The Fifth Estate" who make no pretence of being objective. This article should cover that Rawat has been criticised and it does. "He was ridiculed by the media for his youth and his supposed divine status". "His arrival in the United States was met with some ridicule, as the teenaged Rawat was seen as immature and hence unfit to be a religious leader". "He found Rawat's message to be banal and poorly delivered". "Followers stressed "love, peace and happiness" in their lives, but public attitudes were often unsympathetic". "A confused jumble of inarticulately expressed ideas". "Rawat's affluent lifestyle was a source of controversy in the early 1970s.[50] Some media reports said that Rawat "lived more like a king than a Messiah". Critics said that his lifestyle was supported by the donations of followers and that the movement appeared to exist only to support Rawat's "opulent existence". Supporters said there is no conflict between worldly and spiritual riches, and that Rawat did not advise anyone to "abandon the material world", but said it is our attachment to it that is wrong. Press reports listed expensive automobiles such as Rolls-Royces, Mercedes-Benz limousines and sports cars, some of them gifts. Rawat said, "I have something far more precious to give them than money and material things – I give peace".[56] "Maharaj Ji's luxuries are gifts from a Western culture whose fruits are watches and Cadillacs," a spokesman said.[53] Some premies said that he did not want the gifts, but that people gave them out of their love for him. They saw Rawat's lifestyle as an example of a lila, or divine play, which held a mirror to the "money-crazed and contraption-collecting society" of the West". "removing Rawat as Perfect Master because of his "unspiritual" lifestyle and lack of respect for her wishes". "Rawat had become wealthy as a result of contributions from his Western devotees, and led the life of an American millionaire". "In January 1979 the Los Angeles Times reported that Rawat was maintaining his Malibu following despite a rising mistrust of cults.[65] Bob Mishler and Robert Hand, a former vice president of the movement, complained that money was increasingly diverted to Rawat's personal use,[7] warning that a situation like the recent Jonestown incident could occur with the followers of Rawat.[75] Mishler complained that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill, but his charges found little support and did not affect the progress of the Mission". Momento (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that you would omit sources like Sophie Collier's book, because all criticism has to be from scholarly sources? Your edit uses an article from a newspaper "Sun News – Las Cruces, New Mexico - Wednesday, August 22, 1973" as a source. This is clearly not a scholarly writing and is apparently derived from a DLM press report.PatW (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting the secondary sources such as academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Magazines like The Fifth Estate and writers like Ken Kelley who have extreme views are usually unacceptable and Sophie Collier is a RS about herself and non contentious issues.Momento (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. Our job is to give fair treatment to all sources, with greater weight on the higher quality (academic) ones, who almost always concentrated on Prem Rawat's actual message and its effect on people, rather than the peripherals. When the criticism in the article is gathered into one place, as above, it looks over-emphasized to me. I am still trying to enthuse some Indians I know in the task of providing translations from Delhi newspapers which describe events in recent decades attracting 600,000+ people, one introduced by the Indian Deputy Prime Minister. Rumiton (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Here we go again. So you are saying that all contentious issues ie. all criticism of Rawat has to come from scholarly sources (which as you know are few and far between - in fact these days there are no scholarly writings except Prof Geaves who is appears in Rawat's book, promotional videos and legitimacy campaign and who is entirely uncritical and furthermore has a passionate loathing of Rawat's critics). So although one might rightly choose the favourable sentences from the non-scholarly sources that describe the pieing incident it seems utterly wrong to twist the general reception of the time by omitting all the other criticism from the same or similar sources. That amounts to cherry-picking In fact you two seem to be moving generally to sidelining criticism away from the place it belongs in this case. PatW (talk) 06:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You say "scholarly sources are few and far between"? Here's a list of scholars whose work appears in this article -

Aagaard, Johannes (1980). "Who Is Who In Guruism?" . Update: A Quarterly Journal on New Religious Movements (Dialogcentret) IV (3). Retrieved 2008-07-07. Barbour, John D. (1994). Versions of deconversion : autobiography and the loss of faith. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. ISBN 0-8139-1546-5 9780813915463. 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 0-304-35592-5 9780304355921 1844030407 9781844030408. Beckford, James; International Sociological Association. (1986). New religious movements and rapid social change. London ;Beverly Hills, Calif.;Paris, France: Sage Publications ;Unesco. ISBN 978-0-8039-8003-7. Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin (1993). The illustrated encyclopedia of active new religions, sects, and cults. New York: Rosen Pub. Group. ISBN 0-8239-1505-0 : 9780823915057. Björkqvist, K (1990): "World-rejection, world-affirmation, and goal displacement: some aspects of change in three new religions movements of Hindu origin." In Holm, Nils G. (1990). Encounter with India : studies in neohinduism. Religionsvetenskapliga skrifter, nr 20. Åbo: Åbo akademi. pp. 79–99. ISBN 951-649-731-4 9789516497313. Bowker, John (Ed.), The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, Oxford University Press, New York (1997) ISBN 0-19-213965-7 Bromley, David; New Ecumenical Research Association (Unification Theological Seminary), Phillip E. Hammond (1987). The Future of new religious movements. Macon Ga.: Mercer University Press. ISBN 978-0-86554-237-2. Bromley, David G. (2007). Teaching New Religious Movements (Aar Teaching Religious Studies Series). An American Academy of Religion Book. p. 156. ISBN 0-19-517729-0. Carrol, Peter N. Nothing Happened: The Tragedy and Promise of America in the 1970s, Holt, Rinehart and Winston (1982), ISBN 0-03-058319-5 Chryssides, George D. (2001). Historical dictionary of new religious movements. Historical dictionaries of religions, philosophies, and movements, no. 42. Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press. ISBN 0-8108-4095-2 9780810840959. Clarke, Peter B.; King's College (University of London). Dept. for the History and Philosophy of Religion. (1987). The New evangelists : recruitment methods & aims of new religious movements.. London: Ethnographica. ISBN 0-905788-60-5 9780905788609. Downton, James V. (1979). Sacred journeys: the conversion of young Americans to Division Light Mission. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-04198-5 9780231041980. DuPertuis, Lucy (1986). "How People Recognize Charisma: The Case of Darshan in Radhasoami and Divine Light Mission". Sociological Analysis (Oxford University Press) 47 (2): 111–124. doi:10.2307/3711456. ISSN 00380210. Retrieved 2008-10-14. Fahlbusch, Erwin.; Geoffrey William. Bromiley (1998). Eerdmans encyclopedia of Christianity. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub.. ISBN 0-8028-2413-7 9780802824134. Frankiel, Sandra S. in Lippy, Charles H. and Williams. Peter W. (Eds.) Encyclopedia of the American Religious Experience, p. 1521, Charles Scribner's Sons (1988), ISBN 0-684-18863-5 (Vol III) Galanter, Marc (1999). Cults: Faith, Healing and Coercion. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-512369-7 9780195123692 0195123700 9780195123708. Geaves, Ron (2004-03). "From Divine Light Mission to Elan Vital and Beyond: An Exploration of Change and Adaptation". Nova Religio 7 (3): 45–62. doi:10.1525/nr.2004.7.3.45. Retrieved 2008-10-14. Geaves, Ron (2006a). "Globalization, charisma, innovation, and tradition: An exploration of the transformations in the organisational vehicles for the transmission of the teachings of Prem Rawat (Maharaji)" in Journal of Alternative Spiritualities and New Age Studies - Volume 2, 2006, ISBN 978-1-4196-2696-5, pp. 44–62. "Online version at the "Alternative Spiritualities and New Age Studies Association" website" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-06-14. Geaves, Ron (2006b). "From Guru Maharaj Ji to Prem Rawat: Paradigm Shifts over the Period of 40 Years as a 'Master'". In: Gallagher, Eugene V.; Ashcraft, W. Michael (eds.) (2006). Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America. 4. Westport CT: Greenwood Press. pp. 63–84. ISBN 0-275-98712-4. Geaves, Ron. "From Totapuri to Maharaji: Reflections on a Lineage (Parampara)" in Indian Religions: Renaissance and Revival, ed. Anna King. London: Equinox, 2007 Geaves, Ron. "Forget Transmitted Memory: The De-traditionalised ‘Religion’ of Prem Rawat" in Journal of Contemporary Religion, Vol. 24/1, 2009 Goring, Rosemary (1995). The Wordsworth dictionary of beliefs and religions. Wordworth reference. Ware, Hertfordshire [England]: Wordsworth. ISBN 1-85326-354-0 : 9781853263545. Hadden, Jeffrey K. and Elliot III, Eugene M., Divine Light Mission/Elan Vital in Melton, J. Gordon.; Martin. Baumann (2002). Religions of the world : a comprehensive encyclopedia of beliefs and practices. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 1-57607-223-1 9781576072233 1576077616 9781576077610. Hinnells, John R. (1997). The Penguin dictionary of religions. Penguin reference books. London, England; New York, N.Y., U.S.A.: Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-051261-6 9780140512618. Hunt, Stephen (2003). Alternative religions : a sociological introduction. Aldershot, Hampshire, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate. ISBN 0-7546-3409-4 9780754634096 0754634108 9780754634102. Kent, Stephen A. (2001). From slogans to mantras : social protest and religious conversion in the late Vietnam War era. Religion and politics. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press. ISBN 0-8156-2923-0 9780815629238 0815629486 9780815629481. Lans, Jan van der and Dr. Frans Derks, "Premies Versus Sannyasins " in Update: A Quarterly Journal on New Religious Movements, X/2 (June 1986) (Dutch) Lans, Jan van der Dr. Volgelingen van de goeroe: Hedendaagse religieuze bewegingen in Nederland (Dutch language), Ambo, Baarn, 1981 ISBN 90-263-0521-4 Lee, Raymond; Susan Ellen Ackerman (1997). Sacred tensions : modernity and religious transformation in Malaysia. Columbia S.C.: University of South Carolina Press. ISBN 978-1-57003-167-0. Leech, Kenneth. (2001). Soul friend : spiritual direction in the modern world. Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse Pub.. ISBN 0-8192-1888-X 9780819218889. Levine, Saul V. in Galanter, Marc (1989). Cults and New Religious Movements: A Report of the American Psychiatric Association. American Psychiatric Pub., Inc. ISBN 0-89042-212-5. Lewis, James; NetLibrary, Inc. (1998a). Cults in America a reference handbook. Santa Barbara Calif.: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-0-585-05843-6. Lewis, James R. (1998b). The encyclopedia of cults, sects, and new religions. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-57392-222-6 9781573922227. Lipner, Julius. (1994). Hindus : their religious beliefs and practices. Library of religious beliefs and practices. London; New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-05181-9 9780415051811. Lippy, Charles H. (2002). Pluralism comes of age : American religious culture in the twentieth century. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe. ISBN 0-7656-0151-6 9780765601513. MacDougall, Curtis Daniel (1983). Superstition and the press. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. ISBN 0-87975-211-4 9780879752118 0879752122 9780879752125. Mangalwadi, Vishal (1992). The world of gurus. Chicago, Ill.: Cornerstone. ISBN 0-940895-03-X 9780940895034. McGuire, Meredith B. (2002). Religion, the social context. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning. ISBN 0-534-54126-7 9780534541262. McKean, Lise. Divine Enterprise. Gurus and the Hindu Nationalist Movement, University of Chicago Press, 1996. ISBN 978-0-226-56009-0 Melton, J. Gordon; Robert L. Moore (1982). The cult experience : responding to the new religious pluralism. New York: Pilgrim Press. ISBN 0-8298-0619-9 : 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 0-8240-9036-5 9780824090364. Melton, J. Gordon. (2003). Encyclopedia of American religions. Detroit: Gale. ISBN 0-7876-6384-0 9780787663841. Miller, Timothy (1995). America's alternative religions. Albany: State University of New York Press. ISBN 978-0-7914-2397-4. Moritz, Charles (ed.) (1974). Current Biography Yearbook.. New York: H.W. Wilson Company. ISBN 9997376854. Palmer, Spencer J. and Keller, R. R., Religions of the World: A Latter-day Saint View, Brigham Young University (1997) ISBN 0-8425-2350-2 Petersen, William J. (1982-12). Those Curious New Cults in the 80's (Revised ed.). Keats Pub. p. 307. ISBN 0-87983-317-3. Pilarzyk, Thomas (1978). "The Origin, Development, and Decline of a Youth Culture Religion: An Application of Sectarianization Theory". Review of Religious Research (Religious Research Association, Inc.) 20 (1): 23–43. doi:10.2307/3509939. ISSN 0034673X. Retrieved 2008-10-14. Price, Maeve (1979). "The Divine Light Mission as a social organization". Sociological Review 27: 279–296. Pryor, William, The Survival of the Coolest: A Darwin's Death Defying Journey Into the Interior of Addiction (2004), Clear Press, ISBN 1-904555-13-6 Rawat, Prem and Wolf, Burt. Inner Journey: A spirited conversation about self-discovery (DVD). ISBN 0-9740627-0-7 Rawat, Prem, Maharaji at Griffith University (2004) ISBN 0-9740627-2-3 (Dutch) Schnabel, Paul. Tussen stigma en charisma: nieuwe religieuze bewegingen en geestelijke volksgezondheid ("Between stigma and charisma: new religious movements and mental health"). Erasmus University Rotterdam, Faculty of Medicine, Ph.D. thesis, 1982. Deventer, Van Loghum Slaterus, ISBN 90-6001-746-3. Available online at DBNL Schomer, Karine; W.H. McLeod (1987). The Sants : studies in a devotional tradition of India (1st ed.). Berkeley Calif. ;Delhi: Berkeley Religious Studies Series ;;Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 978-0-9612208-0-8. Siebers, Tobin (1993). Religion and the authority of the past. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-10489-5. The Prem Rawat Foundation presents: Maharaji at Sanders Theatre, Harvard University (2005) ISBN 0-9740627-3-1 United States.;Kirschner Associates.;Institute for the Study of American Religion. (2001). Religious requirements and practices of certain selected groups : a handbook for chaplains. Honolulu HI: University Press of the Pacific [for] U.S. Dept. of Defense Dept. of the Army Office of the Chief of Chaplains. ISBN 978-0-89875-607-4.

Admittedly some are Christian fundamentalists and should be taken with a grain of salt but if they don't criticise or mention others criticising some aspect of Rawat behaviour it's safe to say that it's not a important view.Momento (talk) 08:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. This confirms what I was saying. The vast majority of scholarly writing (except for Geaves) was undertaken prior to 2000. Since then there is comparatively very little indeed. This list is worth checking through. Some of the ISBN numbers seem to be wrong...need checking..PatW (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * A problem with Momento's proposed wording (above), is that we would be informing how 'followers' were implicated, but not stating that they included one of Prem Rawat's "revered" Mahatmas. Here's why I think that detail should be included. It was one of the reasons the incident attracted so much interest and controversy, fairly or unfairly. There are [a significant number of articles] (including the [Penthouse Article of 1974.] that testify to public interest in the matter. How far do we have to tiptoe around all this readily available information to avoid implying that Rawat inspired a degree of fanatical behaviour amongst his devotees? Even Rolling Stone magazine made a connection with Rawat in this respect - "There is a fanaticism about the behavior of premies in the Guru's presence which is often amusing to an outsider (the day before, three premies managed to climb up an air shaft leading into the Celestial Suite) but sometimes borders on the kind of violence not uncommon in millennial movements and at least once, in Detroit, crossed over the line. On that occasion two men posing as ex-devotees of the Guru first asked Pat Halley, the young reporter for The Fifth Estate who threw a pie at Maharaj Ji, to close his eyes so they could demonstrate the meditation techniques to him, then struck him repeatedly on the head with a blunt instrument, causing multiple brain contusions. None of the premies I have talked to about the beating seemed much bothered by it, although some of them were aware that one of Halley's assailants was a revered mahatma who was quickly hustled out of the country and is now giving Knowledge in Germany."  Rawat did inspire his followers to respect his Mahatmas. They were chosen by him (and his father before him) to 'reveal his Knowledge' exclusively. No one else could do that unless they had his blessing. They were held in very high regard and treated with due reverence as a result - that is possibly until this rather tragic incident shook that perception in less fanatical followers. The fact that his Mahatma was implicated in an attempted murder is not something that is out of place in connection with the head of a Millennial Movement's BLP. This information can be fairly included without suggesting Rawat was an accessory to attempted murder as I believe some editors fear is a possibility. Thoughts? PatW (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to add that I would be most surprised if there is any objection to using Rolling Stone Magazine as a source. The article is by one "Richard Levine, a San Francisco-based freelance writer" who "has been an associate editor at Newsweek and a senior editor of Saturday Review/Society. His articles have previously appeared in Harpers, the New Leader and New York magazines." But maybe I'm wrong. What's the Wikipedia thinking on Rolling Stone or Richard Levine as a source?PatW (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Rolling Stone can be an RS for some info but a Rolling Stone article that says "one of Halley's assailants was a revered mahatma who was quickly hustled out of the country and is now giving Knowledge in Germany" but omits that "Rawat said that he did not want his attacker arrested or hurt and when local members heard of the incident they notified Rawat who requested that DLM conduct a full investigation. Two followers were identified as the assailants and the police were immediately notified but the Detroit police declined to initiate extradition proceedings" shows that even a Rolling Stone author was prepared to deliberately omit available material to paint a distorted picture. It's bad enough that it happened in 1974 but it is unacceptable to happen in Wikipedia in 2012. And as we know Fakiranand ignored Rawat and left him to go with Mata Ji and Satpal, so to suggest any closeness to Rawat is to try and apply guilt by association.Momento (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's unfair on Levine. He was maybe aware that the quote you are using was from DLM press release and thus disinclined to use it, or possibly he didn't even know about that information. Furthermore he makes it perfectly clear that he is mentioning the incident as an example of the fanaticism of Rawat's followers which he says "is often amusing to an outside...but sometimes borders on the kind of violence not uncommon in millennial movements and at least once, in Detroit, crossed over the line." It is not a judgement about Rawat personally, further than it informs that he inspired some fanaticism in his position as the head of a Millennial Movement which, although amusing, could also "cross the line" -  This is a fair and conspicuously true observation in my view. Anyway maybe we should add the info that it was a mahatma at the very least. Would you agree to that? PatW (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't take a competent reporter very long to find out the truth. He just wasn't interested. Rawat had 50,000 followers in the US and the Halley incident is the only act of aggression I'm aware of. If the followers were fanatics, they were more like Beatles fanatics than Levine's scenario. And your comment above, that "his Mahatma was implicated in an attempted murder (actually it wasn't) is not something that is out of place in connection with the head of a Millennial Movement's BLP" shows exactly why it is out of place. Without an extensive history of who picked Fakiranand (not Rawat), who controlled the mahatmas until 1974 (Mata Ji and Indian DLM), who Fakiranand listened to (Mata J) and how he left Rawat in 1974 to go with Mata Ji it suggests a connection with Rawat that was never there. Momento (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree and think your argument insubstantial and conclude you're resorting to bluster. I've made my case and I'm inviting comments from others. If they are not interested then I guess we'll have to leave the article in your hands. To be honest I don't know what the appropriate thing to do is at this stage . Blade? Olive? Some advice please.PatW (talk) 08:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would personally welcome a good source's collation of all this info, including the provenance and roles of the mahatmas, the demigod-like way they were treated in India and the possible effect this might have had on their mental stability, plus their eventual fate when Prem Rawat and everyone else had had enough of them, but we don't have it, and we can't supply it ourselves. That would be synthesis at best. Rumiton (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Pat, you simply brush off Momento’s argument as „bluster“. Besides being uncivil again, you simply ignore the factuality of it. And WP does not need to garner allegations and insinuations in a BLP, as a press reporter may believe he has to, for his living. The psychosocial situation for Mahatmas in the DLM at that time is certainly very interesting and relevant for the understanding of the incident, but I feel it would ask too much engagement from an average reader in respect to the space it would take to elaborate the situation. But simply hinting an “inspiration” or an involvement by association would not meet my understanding of encyclopedian quality.Rainer P. (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not hinting at any association. I am simply saying that reliable sources say a "revered Mahatma" was one of the followers who beat the poor chap's skull in and that should not be omitted. We do not need to go into yours or anyone's particular understanding of the incident, this a reported fact and should be included. You are the ones who, by omitting some facts and including others, are insinuating that he had no influence on this incident other than to do all 'the right things' after the event. That's by no means the whole story. There is no need to insinuate anything. Some sources have a decidedly critical tone. Furthermore an Encyclopaedia should include criticism of the subject if that's the way he was received. If readers make negative conclusions about a subject when both sides of the story are presented then that is their choice. With only one side presented they are being deprived of that choice. This is not the function of an encyclopaedia.PatW (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is packed with references to the generally critical way he was received, we are just looking at the Pat Halley/Mahatma issue right now. So, Fakiranand was revered by whom? By Prem Rawat? No one ever said that. Revered by many? Weasely. No doubt there were those who looked up to all the mahatmas, but I have also read that Fakiranand was despised and avoided by those who were tasked with looking after him, for his arrogant and demanding ways and personal peculiarities. And forming opinions while leaving out one side of the situation is exactly what happened in some parts of the media in 1974. Prem Rawat was not "criticised for his handling of the issue" he was criticised for what some people thought was the way he handled it, but they didn't have access to the whole story. Wikipedia must not repeat badly researched stuff that has not stood the test of time, though it can acknowledge that it happened. Rumiton (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note; for readability purposes I've collapsed the list of sources above. This is what I can make of the above. First off, scholarly sources are absolutely considered optimal, newspaper/magazines have a place for these sorts of things too.  They can show a level of public perception a lot of scholarly works don't, and they also show how much Rawat was in the public's awareness in the country/region of said publication, so there is some value to having them.  I don't want to get too involved in the content, as I'd like to keep uninvolved for administrative purposes, but I can say this much about the Halley incident.  One, barring any sources claiming that Halley's suicide was somehow linked to this incident (which I would find highly unlikely), any attempts to make a link would definitely be OR.  Second, if a decent source states that one of these people later went off to Germany and continued as a follower, it makes sense to mention it; it wouldn't be an indictment of Rawat, only a note on how the organization was being run (readers are smart enough to know the leader of anything that size doesn't have one person conducting all its day to day operations).  And I also don't want to get into a detailed analysis of conduct, but briefly; Momento, "I understand your anger that the truth about Rawat's actions in the pieing incident, which shows him to have behaved in an exemplary manner, is now in the article instead of deliberately omitted" wasn't particularly helpful, but I also think that PatW's response could have been a lot more measured.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 06:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, "if a decent source states that one of these people later went off to Germany and continued as a follower, it makes sense to mention it" in the DLM article where "a note on how the organization was being run" belongs.Momento (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would rather be discussing this with some sort of arbitration committee. We could go on arguing the devil in the details forever. Blade could you help with this if you agree? I couldn't possibly do this alone as a) have little time b) outnumbered c) don't know how. I'm open to advice. Cheers. PatW (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If BOTNL want's to add something about how the organization was being run, here's a scholar's view from Price, Maeve (1979): The Divine Light Mission as a social organization.(1)Sociological Review, 27, Page 279-296 - "The actual formal organization of DLM was set up in Britain in 1971 and it was registered as a charity with Mata Ji acting as regent for her son, Maharaj Ji, who was still a minor, and with half English and half Indian premies on the board of directors. In the early days Mata Ji was unquestionably the power behind the throne. She was supported by her three other sons, who were all senior to Maharaj Ji, and by a number of Indian mahatmas who helped to organize the mission in the West...Immediately following Maharaj Ji's marriage a struggle for power took place within the Holy Family itself. Maharaj Ji was now sixteen years old. He had the knowledge that his personal following in the West was well established. It is likely that he felt the time had come to take the reins of power from his mother, who still dominated the mission and had a strong hold over most of the mahatmas, all of whom were born and brought up in India". Momento (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)