User talk:Steven Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat

←Backlink to Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Prem Rawat‎

←Backlink to Talk:Prem Rawat‎

Archive 1


 * Use of sources:
 * Cagan
 * Collier
 * Geaves
 * New York Times
 * Randi
 * Time
 * Watts
 * Wim Haan
 * Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji? (book)
 * What needs to be mediated here?


 * Context- what additional material needs to be added about:
 * Ted Patrick as it relates to criminal activities related to the kidnapping mention
 * van Driel/Richardson, regarding his study of terminology in U.S. print media
 * Context for religious persecution by the totalitarian military regimes in South America
 * Membership numbers. Incomplete presentation of available estimates from a variety of sources
 * Merging/splitting of related articles
 * Use of a souce that is not a reliable source and that it is self-published (Manav Dharam and TPRF) website, to make self-serving claims, and claims about third parties.
 * DLM in India section
 * Exceptional claims
 * Celibacy issue

Issue/Discussion topic D: Cagan
This thread is for discussion of the use of Andrea Cagan's book, Peace is Possible as a source for Wikipedia biographis of living people. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We already agreed to discuss sources in the context in which they are used. So, there is no point on this thread. Please discuss at User_talk:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat/Proposal7 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please explain what are the problems you have with this source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cagan is used in various contexts, and its use is not dependent on the context. This is a long-term dispute and one that led to this mediation. The mediator added a list of topic to mediate at the top of this page. Let's discuss it here. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Gladly, though it'll be a few hours before I can sit down to compose a full account. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Main thread (there have also been many short discussions on the same pages) Please add any important discussions that I've missed.:
 * Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 23 23 February 2007
 * Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 23 26 February 2007
 * Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 23 1 March 2007
 * Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 23 2 March 2007
 * Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 23 9 March 2007
 * Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 24 10 May 2007
 * Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 29 18 February 2008
 * Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 30 19 February 2008
 * Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 29 20 February 2008
 * Talk:Divine Light Mission/Archive 3 29 April 2008
 * Talk:Divine Light Mission/Archive 4 8 May 2008
 * Talk:Divine Light Mission/Archive 4 12 May 2008

There are several problems with Cagan's Peace is Possible that are sufficient in my opinion to discount its use as a reliable, secondary source. (Note: I have read the book but I don't have a copy at hand.) In summary, the book is not just error-filled. It has an unexplained omission so large that it makes the rest of the book worthless as a reliable source. It contradicts published, reliable sources on factual matters. There are no references to make it appear reliable. It was published by a one-book company with no reputation for reliability. It is obviously biased in favor of the subject and against those who may be perceived as his opponents, including his family. For these reasons it is suitable only as a primary source for the author's opinions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The most glaring problem is the total omission of the Divine Light Mission. The DLM was founded by the subject's father. The subject became the spiritual leader of the DLM as a child and retained that position until the missoin was disbanded starting in 1982. When he travelled to the U.K. and U.S. branches of the DLM were founded there. The DLM claimed to have millions of members in the 1970s. The DLM setup ashrams to house devoted followers of the subject and organized festivals in his honor. It bought him homes for which it paid the mortgages, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of planes and cars using their tax-exempt status. Virtually every single reference to the subject written before 1990 also mentions the DLM. Yet what does Cagan have to say about the DLM? Nothing. Not a word. There's not even a single entry for the organization in the index. This omission is so significant that it amounts to a major error, and brings the reliability of the entire book into question. It is the equivalent of a biography of John D. Rockefeller failing to mention Standard Oil, or a biography of Charles V leaving out the Holy Roman Empire.
 * 2) The lack of sources, references, or citations is perplexing. If I recall correctly, the book contains verbatim transcripts of conversations that occured years or even decades ago. Yet the author explicitly says she never interviewed the subject. She also, apparently, failed to interview any ex-followers, even those in prominent positions like Dettmer. I've read several reviews of biographies in which the authors are castigated for giving verbatim dioalog without a source. It's poor writing and it raises further questions about reliability.
 * 3) There are instances in which she directly contradicts other published sources without explanation. For example, she claims that the subject's doctor never diagnosed him with an ulcer, despite numerous printed reports quoting the doctor discussing his diagnosis. For another example, we have multiple sources that say the subject's passport was confiscated in 1973 and not returned until mid 1974 after the posting of a large bond. But Cagan says that it was returned immediately, and claims that published sources are mistaken about other details as well, all without giving any indication of how she would know better.
 * 4) To someone familiar with the subject's history and controversies, it's apparent that the book is written entirely from the point of view of the subject. Like an autobiography, special effort seems to go into "settling old scores" and "setting the record straight". While it's hard to quantify bias, it's obvious enough to make the book unreliable except as a primary source for the opinions of Cagan.
 * 5) The fact that it was published by a single-book publisher that was established by leading followers of the subject means that there was no 3rd-party editorial oversight, a necessity for a reliable source. WP:V tells us to judge books by the reputations of their publishers and the editing process. This book counts as close to zero in both respects.
 * In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.


 * That seems like an excellent summary of the problems Will, oh, uhm but then again, I've done zero research, and made no useful proposals or comments so far, so I guess take my kudos for what you think they're worth. :) -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 05:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) There are numerous references to the organization Shri Hans started. And numerous references to the organizations that helped Rawat. It makes sense to be general since in Malaysia there was Prime Academy, in Singapore the Society for Insight, in Greece the Art of Life etc.
 * 2) Numerous sources are quoted in the text, most of them eye witnesses.
 * 3) Cagan's contradiction of media sources is to her credit. She spoke to dozens of people who were there, not a reporter relying on second and third hand reports.
 * 4) No surprise that Rawat and the people around him have a different view from Christian clergyman or a newspaper reporter. That's why the book is so valuable, it's a story told by people who were there. Not by people reading about it in the paper.
 * 5) As pointed out, PIP has been published by several established and independent publishing houses.
 * 6) As per 5.
 * In summary, PIP is a valuable resource written by an independent and respected biographer and published by several established and independent publishing houses. We don't exclude sources because of their obvious negative bias, why would we want to exclude a source because some people think it has a positive bias. This is a storm in a teacup.Momento (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not only eyewitnesses, but witnesses that went on the record. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I will take the time and respond to each one of these personal opinions of Will Beback about this book. For now, I will copy here the links we found today in which three other publishers (which may be better informed that Will BeBack) have published this book in other countries than the US:


 * Editorial Dilema, and
 * Alles Kultur, also featured here
 * Editorial Magnolia, and here

These three publishers renders the supposed self-published status of this book moot. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless those publishers had editorial review over the books they would appear to count more as printers and distributors than as publishers in the sense meant by WP:V. If it's just a straight translation then I don't think that the book's reliability is improved along the way. Do the translations have forewords that say the facts have been checked by the new publishers? Did they change or correct any facts in the book? Do the translations mention the Divine Light Mission? If not then they haven't been corrected and the reliability of the book is the same as before it was translated.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You do not know, and you are speculating, crossing into WP:OR yet gain. I do not think that you can speculate about the inner workings and decision making of publishers. A publisher, as far as I know, assess a book before they take it on to put it in their catalog. And they may have made corrections, or not, depending if they had the need to do so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And you do not know that they exerted any editorial oversight of the work, which is an element of the evaluation that WP:V calls for us to do. It's still a zero. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And you don't know if they exerted editorial oversight, and cannot claim that they haven't, same as I cannot claim that they have. I can only speculate alongside you, but speculation will not win this argument for any of us. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cagan has written several biographies, so she's in the clear. And PIP has been published by several independent and established publishes, so no cause for complaint there. This issue is finally and absolutely resolved.Momento (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You do not know either, and you are also speculating, or do you have longstanding relationship with a few publishing firms (other than A Mighty River Press) to back up that claim? A publisher, as far as I know, does not assess a book if it is merely a translation, they translate it and reprint it, hardly a stamp of approval."And they may have made corrections or not", really? they may have done something, or might not have?? Isn't that the only 2 choices there are??! -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 07:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are speculating, I am speculating, Will is speculating. As said above, we will need to do a lot better to win this argument. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How am I speculating? I just pointed out that unless you know a few publishing firms, your claims are just guesses. Do you know a few publishing firms? Particularly, how they operate in the field of republishing books, especially in foreign languages? I am not claiming to have such a relationship, or to be an expert, but I have had some experience with publishers and translations, and I cannot recall any instance where the publisher changed any meanings from the original text. Now that I think about it, how could they? It is not their book. -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 07:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Will Beback personal opinions on this book, point by point:
 * 1) DLM -  The book focuses on Rawat's life on his message, and does not mention the DLM, or Elan Vital, maybe because these  were organizations not founded by him. It mentions The Prem Rawat Foundation, because as Cagan writes:  In November 2001, Maharaji established The Prem Rawat  Foundation (TPRF), an idea he conceived during a conversation with Linda Pascotto, an active philanthropist and one of his long-time students. Maharaji was attracted to the idea of having his own foundation through which to further his message of peace and to provide humanitarian aid to people the world over.
 * 2) The lack of sources, references, or citations is perplexing - Will BeBack can be as perplexed as he wants to be. We have used several books as sources in this article that have no references or citations. As for sources, the author states that: So, in preparation for this book, I decided to interview those who knew him well, and I met with everyone from his cook to his photographer, from his friends to his lifelong students. I taped conversations, I watched DVDs, and I read his talks that have been meticulously saved for posterity. Finally, after reviewing thousands of pages of interviews and media clippings, watching many of his taped addresses, and speaking to a multitude of people who knew him during different phases of his life, a picture began to emerge. - Authors chose who to interview and who not to interview. The fact that she did not interview some ex-followers does not mean that she does not have an opinion on them, as she writes about them in her book.
 * 3) There are instances in which she directly contradicts other published sources without explanation - We have found through the many sources that we have amassed that there are often competing and contradictory statements made by poor journalism, hostile studies and what not. Cagan writes what she writes and we can attribute any such statements to her as we have done with other authors;  About the passport, Cagan writes At one meeting, his passport was temporarily taken from him, which is different than what Will Beback claims. Cagan never says that it was returned immediately. Same about the ulcer. Will Beback interpretation of these issues is incorrect.
 * 4) To someone familiar with the subject's history and controversies, it's apparent that the book is written entirely from the point of view of the subject. To this I will respond: To someone familiar with the 1970's, it is apparent that the negative press he received was related to the cultural context of these years. And yet, we abundantly use such sources. Granted, the book is sympathetic to Prem Rawat, but that does not make a source not reliable, as we can always attribute statements to authors, as we have always done in similar situations.
 * 5) it was published by a single-book publisher - See previous comment about other publishers. The RfC on this was very useful: . Also note that the book has been published by three additional publishing houses: Editorial Dilema, and , Alles Kultur , and [Editorial Magnolia

In summary, the book is not error-filed as Will attempts to frame it, but a very detailed book on the life of Prem Rawat, from his birth and until today, with numerous accounts from individuals that had a direct contact with Rawat. As with many other biographies, it is written from a sympathetic point of view, which is neither a crime nor carries stigma of unreliability, and has been published and translated by four different publishing houses. A most suitable source for a Wikipedia article on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC) In any case, Cagan is no match for scholarly sources, nor for mainstream newspapers (not that anyone was defending that stance, just making things clear), and thus has no place in what Wikipedians consider the category of sources of the highest reliability. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting. But even the defense doesn't amount to more than asking to consider the content of the Cagan book at the same level as an op-ed. I think we can all live with that. What fired off this renewed discussion of Cagan (prop7) was whether on the wealth issue all material sourced to 70s newpapers could be replaced by Cagan material. There's certainly no improved reliability of the 21st century op-ed over contemporary material of the 70s (and later), where at least most often the sources are quoted (AP, UPI, Reuters,...), investigative journalism implied that all sides were asked to give their response, and errors were put straight the next day.
 * I have not argued for Cagan to be used as a replacement for any source. All I have argued that this book is a suitable source alongside all other sources. As for the op-ed argument above, I am not sure that this type of argument is grounded: I have yet to see that biographies are considered op-eds. Granted, biographies of living people are in many cases written as opinionated pieces, but that is not new or special. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And before you assume that your opinion of this book is accepted, I would say that you are mistaken. I will continue to make proposals in which her book is used, as I am doing with other material I am researching. This discussion is not about specific edits, but a generic discussion about the book. Again: this book is a suitable source for material about the life of Prem Rawat, per arguments presented. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also to be noted that the edition I have has a page count of 349 pages, and I would be interested on what other "errors" Will Beback has found beside the two he claims to be such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that one of the RfC respondents bnack in 2007 said that if any evidence of inaccuracy in this book is presented, we can look on books published by this press with some suspicion. There is evidence of inaccuracy, even aside from the glaring omission. I don't have the book in front of me, but other editors may know of additional errors. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The glaring omission is only your personal opinion, which differs from mine. My opinion is that it is not an omission but maybe, a deliberate act: Rawat did not found the DLM or Elan Vital, and as per scholarly sources never keen on organizations. So, the author may have wanted to simply describe PR's life from that perspective. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If the author wants to write a distorted biography that fails to mention the organization that bought his homes, cars, and planes, that organized his followers, his ashrams, and his festivals, that produced films, printed magazines, and newspapers to honor him, that was the "family business" his father created, then that author is welcome to write that story. But it'd be inappropriate for serious encyclopedia writers to take such an eccentric book and use it as a reliable secondary source for facts about living persons. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You keep making your opinions sound like facts. This is not a distorted biography. It is a biography that is not written from a hostile press viewpoint, which I could argue is as distorted as it can get. Again, your opinions are just that, and have no merit unless you can present evidence that there are errors in Cagans facts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a fact that the book omits any mention of the DLM. It is a fact that the DLM was the organization of Rawat's followers, that it paid his bills for decades, and that it is intimately tied to his fame and prominence. The existence of the DLM was not imagined by a hostile press. The DLM is mentioned by the scholars and other writers just as often as by the journalists. Even Geaves mentions it. Is he the "hostile press"? The omission of the DLM is itself an enormous error that leaves the book so skewed and incomplete as to be utterly unreliable for the unsourced facts it does include. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I've realized what the problem is. The U.S. in the 70s was still essentially a racist, xenophobic country. It was only in 1970 that support for formal legal segregation finally dissolved and the Ohio national guard still felt it appropriate to murder four anti-war protestors at Kent State University. So the criticism of an Indian foreigner like Rawat a few years later was common and accepted by many. The sort of gratuitous insults repeated regularly in the press  about Rawat's looks, diet, speaking style, religious concepts and traditions would never happen in a reputable newspaper now. Even Time magazine made fun of his vegetarian diet. Especially galling to the narrow minded establishment was fact that tens of thousands of America's best and brightest preferred Rawat to them and enabled him to live like a millionaire. Even in 1980 this xenophobia was alive and well in some areas -  A 1980 article in The Washington Post reported that a Maryland House of Delegates committee was urged to investigate religious cults in the state and told that "Guru Maharaj Ji's Divine Light Mission (amongst other groups) was a cult that employ manipulative techniques and turned children against their parents." Committee members Del. Robin Ficker (R-Montgomery) likened such a probe to the Spanish Inquisition and Del. Luiz Simmons, another Montgomery Republican, compared it to the McCarthy hearings in the early 1950s. Obviously we've all moved on since then.Momento (talk) 10:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have taken receipt of the US version of "Peace is Possible" now, and one of the foreign-language versions is conveniently searchable in amazon. It's not quite correct to say that the book does not mention the "organization", it does mention it many times and always refers to it just as such ("organization"). It refers (at least once) to "premies". It mentions Millennium '73, as well as Mishler (several times). It does not claim that Rawat did not have an ulcer, merely that journalists made a big deal about it before there even had been an official announcement. (In fact I am puzzled that a doctor should have spoken to the press without the patient's consent, I thought that would be a breach of medical confidentiality, but whatever.) Cagan does not claim that Rawat's passport was returned immediately, she says it was "temporarily taken from him" and mentions that Rawat was eager to leave India and couldn't. Generally, the book looks like a typical "authorised" celebrity biography to me, from what I've seen so far. Jayen 466 11:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I agree on all counts. I do not believe Rawat's doctor discussed Rawat's condition with the press. No normal doctor would do it, and Rawat's doctor certainly would not.Momento (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, checking again, there is some apparent discrepancy with regard to the ulcer. Cagan says, 'Although there was never an official diagnosis of his illness, the press had a field day, proclaiming, "The guru has an ulcer."' Press reports of the time, however, quote Dr Horton, his personal physician (and a premie), stating that he had a mild ulcer. (There is also a very slight discrepancy between the German and English versions of the book which led to my misquoting Cagan above; the German says "no official announcement" ("keine offizielle Verlautbarung"), while the English says "no official diagnosis".) Jayen 466 12:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)]


 * I did a bit of searching and came upon the website of Carrie Andrews who is a professional proofreader, fact-checker, and copyeditor. She lists as her clients under Non-Fiction:  Copyedit: Andrea Cagan/The Prem Rawat Foundation, Peace Is Possible. 10/06. See Carrie Andrews, under "non-fiction." If this professional proofreader and copyeditor claims to have provided services for her clients: Andrea Cagan/The Prem Rawat Foundation, it logically follows that PIP is a self-published, vanity press book for TPRF, which contracted Andrea Cagan to write the book about Prem Rawat. While Andrews claims to also do fact-checking, she doesn't state she did any fact-checking on Cagan's book about Prem Rawat.  PIP, therefore, is a vanity piece paid for and promoted by The Prem Rawat Foundation.  Sylviecyn (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hadn't folks already discovered that the two men who founded MightyRiver Press were on the board of the PRF? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh? "folks"? "discovered"? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And who might these "folks" be? Well, at least Will isn't pretending to be neutral any more. Rumiton (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC) I am sorry, I should have referred to Will's eagerness to adopt any source that is critical of Prem Rawat in a more neutral way. Won't happen again. Rumiton (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ms Andrews copyedited Cagan's book. If you care to look what Ms Andrews says her copyediting services comprise, you will see that it includes fact checking. So the argument is now that because the author demonstrably used an independent fact checker, the book is not fact-checked. We all know that the publishers of the book have close links to Rawat. The same is true, however, for any other authorised biography, and I am not aware that authorised biographies are generally disallowed as sources, however fawning some of them may be. Jayen 466 18:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is that Ms. Andrews's client is "Andrea Cagan/The Prem Rawat Foundation." Not Andrea Cagan and the Mighty River Press, the publisher, which is standard practice in the publishing field when a publisher doesn't have the human resources to conduct its own copy editing.  If, as you contend, Ms Andrews did fact checking, then she did a horrible job because in her book there are so many big errors, and huge errors of omissions (which are in fact lies) in the book -- it's difficult to begin to list them them all.  But, rest assured,  I've contacted Ms. Andrews to ascertain whether she indeed did do fact-checking (which if she say she did, will make me want to give her a big fat grade F on her services) along with copy editing because the two are quite different things.  Btw, PIP is not a bona fide "authorized biography."  Show me where the book says that it's an authorized biography.  It's a bought and paid for vanity piece by TPRF that bought and paid a devotee, Levine, who formed the publishing company, Mighty River Press for the sole purpose of publishing a book paid for by TPRF, or Prem Rawat.  Andrea Cagan is a sort-of ghost writer who gets credit for her work on other biographies, such as Grace Slick's, but they are not academic biographies with bona fide sources, footnotes and end notes on sources.  Frankly, Jayen, your naivete on the subject of NRMs is surprising, and if you are so naive, that tells me you are unable to write NPOV, so I suggest you find another uncontroversial topic on Wiki about which to write, or seriously consider reading about the subject of cognitive dissonance.  You're not helping on this project, Jayen, you're hindering in a big way because you obviously don't know how to research and report on subjects using rational and critical thinking, nor are you able to make critical assessments about the same.  But, I'm sure you are willing to learn so go and learn. Sylviecyn (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OMG, people see ghosts where they want to see them. If you read carefully the author's note, Cagan says "and I read his talks that have been meticulously saved for posterity", so it could have been that Cagan and the fact checker worked with the Foundation to obtain archival material for the book. I think that people here should stop with the speculation and rather that pursue their pet theories, provide evidence of the factual errors that they are claiming the book has. I have not found any such errors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sylviecyn, for one, the book is described as an authorised biography on several websites critical of Rawat. I think it's safe to say that it shares some characteristics of all authorised biographies, notably those of glossing over controversy and presenting its subject in the way they would like to be seen. However, while it may be biased, it is not more so than some of the other sources (in the opposite direction) that we use and cite. Having been published in four or five languages, I see no reason to categorically say it must not be used as a source here. In fact, for some details, such as family circumstances etc., it is probably indispensable. My stance is, it can be used, with attribution where contentious. Jayen 466 21:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayen, elsewhere you seem to be saying that it's more reliable than mainstream newspapers. That's the opposite of what WP:V says. If we're going to use it at all, we need to establish how reliable it is. Based on the criteria in WP:V, it appears to be the least reliable source possible. That doens't mean it can't be used ever, but it means that there is no reason to think it is more reliable than sources that do meet the WP:V criteria. I think that "where contentious" it shouldn't be used at all, any more than we'd use a follower's blog.   ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't arguing that it was more reliable than mainstream newspapers. I proposed including both versions, or dropping any reference to the disputed fact altogether, given that it was minor. And there are cases where I would consider Cagan the more reliable source. Don't you remember, e.g., the Malibu Guru Maintains Following Despite Rising Mistrust of Cults article in the LA Times (12 Jan. 1979) states that the Malibu estate was bought in 1974 for "Maharaj Ji, his wife and their two small children." Cagan is clearly the more accurate and reliable source here, stating the exact birthdays of all four children, with the first two being born in March 1975 and September 1976 – the Rawats didn't have children in 1974. (And just for good measure, their third child was born in June 1978, so they had three, not two, children by the time the article in the LA Times appeared.) The judgment depends on the context. Jayen 466 22:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the other day we were speculating on the Proposal 7 talk page when Rawat might first have taken flying lessons, what the minimum age for taking flying lessons might be, etc. Cagan clearly dates his first flying lessons to 1972 (in England, following a trip to South Africa where he flew with an instructor). I see no reason to doubt her veracity on such matters, or that Rawat once had a boating accident by being stupid and nearly ended up drowning etc. Jayen 466 22:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I could not disagree more (with Will). Please do not mis-use personal opinions or personal judgments to assert reliability of a source. I am still awaiting to see what "errors" are in Cagan's book, because have not found any. I have read the book and it includes a large number of personal accounts of people that had contact with Prem Rawat, which went on the record. An excellent piece of research, IMO. As Jaen said, granted it is a sympathetic account of PRs life, but it is not less researched than some of the pieces that we are using as sources, some of which re conradictory with other such sources, of that have been characterized as biased (as Kemmeny vs Foss & Larkin). For facts that are not disputed in other sources, Cagan can be used without attribution, and for facts that are contradicted in other sources or for opinions, we always have attribution.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See for example Meher Baba, which I have been working on with other GA reviewers. Most of the material for that article is sourced to sympathetic sources, and there is no problem whatsoever if properly attributed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Whose personal accounts does Cagan's book include? Do we know their names or are they anonymous? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I though you said that you have read the book. Have you? If you have, you would remember that there are many, many people interviewed and their names clearly stated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just checked the book and there are many, many people's full names that comment throughout the article about the happenings they were involved in through PR's life. Some examples Carol Hurst, Sandy Collier, David Lovejoy (an Oxford graduate and international-class chess player according to Cagan), Sue Ratcliffe ... and these in just two pages 145-146. I will have to go trough the index and count them all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I don't have the book in front of me. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So, may I ask what are you asking for? A list of names? Do not see what would be the purpose of that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My question was whether we knew the names of the people who gave personal accounts and you answered yes. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is talk page, and certainly not the place to get more information about the book. Incase you haven't been through the book, it would be advisable not to comment on it too. --Taxed123 (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Cagan couldn't have done any real fact-checking on chapter subjects that concern former followers, other than to gain the opinions and personal accounts about them from current adherents (who are clearly biased). She never contacted any of those ex-premies or former followers to give them an opportunity to confirm or deny her accounts of them, so that's a specific reason to limit PIP to only matters about uncontroversial things, such as dates, places of birth, etc. Also, there certainly are errors of omission, which are bona fide errors, by the way, i.e., Cagan didn't interview Mahatma Saphlanand (the first western Mahatma) yet writes about him, Mike Finch was entirely written out of the history of Rawat's life and he played a key role in arranging Maharaji's travel to the UK, as well as others, who are no longer followers of Maharaji, but happen to be vocally critical.  Did she contact John MacGregor?  These a legitimate questions that make the book so hagiographic rather than biographical.  And reason to question the "facts" in the book.  In her other "biograhies," Cagan co-wrote them with the subject, such as with Grace Slick, but in PIP, she didn't even interview Prem Rawat.   Moreover, any fact-checking that may have been done by the copyeditor, according to Jossi above, was conducted through TPRF by obtaining and checking archival material from TPRF, yet the copyeditor lists TPRF as her client, not Visions International which is the d/b/a of Elan Vital that maintains all of Prem Rawat's biographical archival material.  How can someone fact-check in the real spirit of literary editorial fact-checking, when they limit their own sources of such fact-checking to only Pro-Rawat individuals and his organizations, yet also include in her book account about others (former followers) when they are not contacted to fact-check her accounts of them?  That's a glaring error right there.  It was agreed in previous discussions that PIP would be used only for non-controversial issues.  Why has that now changed?   I'm not imagining ghosts, and if I'm going to reprimanded for characterizing other editors, I'd appreciate if editors refrain from doing the same.  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * More speculation? When will this end? How do you know who maintains biographical archival material? It seems that you have not read the book. Cagan interviewed dozens of former mahatmas and bai ji's. Sure, she did not interviewed some apostates, but I would not blame her for it. After all this is a book about Prem Rawat and his message. Granted, she does report on McGregor and other people, so it seems that she reported what she thinks is notable on the subject. Sure, she makes some quite devastating arguments about the activities of certain detractors, without mincing words, but hey, that is her prerrogative, as it is the prerrogative of other sources to write things intended to assessinate PRs's character. This book can and should be used to report facts and figures not available in other sources, and on subjects about which there are other sources that say differently, we can always use attribution, as we have done with many other sources that would have been less informed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also argue that the framing for "pro-Rawat", "anti-Rawat" is one that critical ex members tend to over emphasize (which can be understood given the intense focus these people have on the subject), but that is a distortion that should be ignored when addressing ths article. This article is not about pro or anti viewpoints on the life of PR, but a biographical article that needs to be written in an encyclopedic tone. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not speculation, Jossi, it's argument, two different things. Cagan wrote a hagiographical account of Prem Rawat and neglected to fact-check matters concerning those people she chose to be critical of, i.e., apostates (your term), or former followers, ex-premies.  That, without question, brings into question the reliability of her book as a whole source in this article by viture of her omission of fact-checking in those areas.  In my argument here I'm not advocating more anti- over pro- material in the article.  Those are also your words.  I'm merely asking that all editors put on their objective thinking caps and acknowledge that Cagan didn't do an exhaustive fact-checking of her book on all areas of her writing, and didn't interview all the subjects in her material.  She is guilty of error by omission. It's plain and simple and undeniable.  She didn't interview John Brauns, for example, or Mike Finch, and that may have been her choice, but that's also her problem if she wants her book to be viewed as a credible biography.  Therefore, her book is not a reliable source for anything but for non-contentious material.  Why?  Because Cagan chose to take the "sloppy writing" route rather than confirming information about everyone about whom she wrote, including your apostates.  Heck, she could have interviewed all the apostates and still written about them in her book as it stands, including that your apostates said they disagreed with her account of them. That is simply what all good biographers and journalists do -- they contact the living subjects of their books or articles, in order to give them the option to confirm or deny or not comment.  But, unfortunately, Cagan didn't do that, and because she didn't do that, her whole account of Rawat's life is now not reliable.  Cagan cannot have her cake and eat it too.  If one or two of her chapters are in question, then the entire book must be called into scrutiny.  That's the context of my argument, which is not opinion, but argument.  Please remember that instead of characterizing my arguments based on your personal opinions of me.  Thank you.  Sylviecyn (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're requiring Cagan to come up to a standard that many of our other sources do not fulfil either. I am as sure as you are about Cagan that all the people who wrote negative and slanted articles about Rawat, whether based on apostate testimony or not, didn't bother checking with premies either (or Rawat himself, for that matter). They certainly didn't bother putting his or their side. What you are proposing seems like a double standard to me, unless you are in favour of excluding all those one-sided press articles as well. Jayen 466 19:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No I'm not, Jayen. Jossi claims the book is exhaustively researched and he asked for errors to be pointed out, which is what I did.  Rawat's organization claim it to be the most thorough, etc. biography of Rawat ever written.  Omissions of fact (and people) are still errors.  Just like lying by omission is still a lie.  All I'm saying is that any author who writes non-fiction, especially biographical works, must be held to high standards, just like mainstream periodicals and newspapers hold their writers to high standards, especially concerning their sources and fact-checking because their newpapers could be open to liable suits.  That Cagan writes about former followers but chose (Jossi's word) not to contact them so she could determine if what she writes about them is factual or not, is sloppy, unprofessional unreliable writing and unsuitable for any sourcing, but for dates of birth, places of birth, etc. which I hope she did get correct.  I know of one date she did have an error on and it's a minor point, but still.  It's the date of a program in New Jersey in 1976.  And if you read many of the media accounts, the majority of such reports have asked for resonses from official Rawat/DLM spokepersons, and/or followers.  Another argument against the Cagan book is that her other works are categorized as autobiographies because she co-authored them with the subject.  That Cagan never interviewed Rawat is quite strange, considering he's a living subject and given they both live in the L.A. area.  Additionally, because Cagan had open access to the subject's organizations, archives, and followers, she must be held up to a much higher standard of accuracy and fact-checking, than say, scholarly sources and media reports that had very limited, if any, access to the subject, etc.  And I'm not just speaking to POVs here, pro or con.  I'm speaking to a book sloppily, haphazardly written with little regard for facts. Sylviecyn (talk) 11:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody is arguing that the book is perfect. Not referring to the DLM name is an editorial decision; but are you seriously suggesting that because of this, readers would not know who the book is about? Rawat is called Maharaji for much of the book, the Millennium event is covered, the entire controversy around his marriage and family rift is covered, and as far as I can see, factually. What the book does have is a distinctly pro-Rawat POV. For example, describing the court case against Bal Bhagwan Ji, Cagan writes:
 * Now compare this to the LA Times report:
 * The facts are the same, the POV is not. But that is not a problem. Each source brings its own POV, and we should generally be on guard against that.
 * If opponents of Rawat fear that Cagan's book may be used to slander them, I am hopeful we can all agree that we will not cite those parts of Cagan's book. Beyond that, I feel it adds valuable insider detail, and as long as it is used with attribution, it can be managed responsibly. Jayen 466 12:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My concern has nothing to do with whether or not anyone will be libelled (btw, libel is written defamation, slander is spoken defamation). The point is that the book is promoted by TPRF, ContactInfo, and Mighty River Press as "...the first full and complete story of Prem Rawat. It documents his extraordinary life, from growing up with a father who was a revered master, to the day he first addressed audiences at age three, to being discovered by hippies at his home by the Himalayan foothills when he was a child, to his dramatic arrival in the West at thirteen, to today."  Either it's full and complete or its not.  Moreover, if this authorized biography is used as a source for controversial issues, then I propose that the earlier authorized biography of Prem Rawat, Who is Guru Maharaj Ji. is also suitable to be used as a source for this article(s).  That book, published in 1973 by Bantam Books, states it is "The authentic authorized story of the 15-year-old Guru whose message of peace has changed millions of lives!"   Sylviecyn (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not speaking in a legal context, but if you want to discuss dictionary definitions, see . The book certainly covers his entire life story, including the DLM period, so I have no idea what you're getting at. My feeling is you simply don't like the POV of the book. At any rate, I and others still await a cataloguing of all these numerous factual inaccuracies. So far you have claimed, without a source, that a date is wrong somewhere. Wow! Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 14:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The "one-sided" press reports are published in mainstream newspapers that have editorial review processes. The "one-sided" material in Cagan's book was published by a one-book publisher established by his followers that has no perceptible editorial review process. They are not in the same league. And the journalists do routinely quote Rawat's spokesmen and followers,m so they aren't one-sided at all. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll allow that not all, but very many quality media accounts have taken the trouble to seek and include a statement from a spokesperson for Rawat. I would reiterate though that popular press accounts have been criticised as biased by scholars and religious freedom observers. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 21:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Those criticisms were not, so far as I'm aware, about any of the sources we're using. They were general criticisms. There are general criticisms of vanity biographies too. I don't think that general criticisms that aren't specific to these sources or this topic are especially useful. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not. So, after all this, and given that she does name sources, how would you propose Cagan be used? Not at all? With attribution only? Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 22:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going away from the computer for the next 24 hours or so, and will respond when I'm back. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * @Sylviecyn: I did not characterize arguments based on you. But let me ask a question: why should Cagan interview John Brauns? What notability are yous asserting to consider his testimony to be useful? So, she did not interview Finch or other people, so what? An author interviews whomever the author want to interview. Are we now starting to make assessments of sources based on whom the source's author interviewed or not? If we do that we shall throw away 99% of the sources we have used. We have sources that are absolutely wrong, and yet we cite them. We have sources that are contradicted on other sources, yet we cite them. We have sources that are written by people with an agenda (Lans, Kraneborg, for example), and we still cite them. We have sources written by irresponsible journalists, and we still cite them, etc. So, if we apply the same standards to all sources, biased for, bisaed againsr, or neutral, there is absolutely no reason not to use Cagan as a source, attributing anything that is contested when needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * @Will Beback: You are implying that journalistic sources are impeachable, but that is farther from the truth. As someone has already argued, the context on the 1970's is one that cannot be dismissed. Journalistic sources that describe PR as a "overweight midget" are as tainted as one can argue, and still, editors here have fervently argued for their inclusion. In summary, Cagan's book is as good as any other source we have proposed for these articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No one has argued, fervently or otherwise, for the inclusion of comments like "overweight midget". However, it is a fact that the subject was about 5'5" in height and was soberly reported to weigh 160 pounds, which is overweight according to today's standards. Those facts aren't in dispute. Even his physician discussed his weight publicly. There's no comparing of mainstream newspaper reporting with a vanity book paid for by followers. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me ask you again. Have you read the book? How can you argue that this book is a "vanity" piece when it describes numerous controversies, including a tomato throwing incident at an event in France, and many others. This book is as good as a source as many other sources that you have proposed. As for "paid by followers", it seems that these "followers" had a good business sense, as the book reached number 9 in Amazon in the first days after being published, and seem to have sold the rights to three other publishers in Europe. That in itself does not make this book unsuitable as a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * When a book on a now-obscure spiritual teacher sells tens of thousands of copies in a week it's pretty obvious that the buyers are his followers. You have only to read the Amazon reviews to get a sense of the buying population. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought we had previously established, with the agreement of the Rawat followers here, Jossi, Derek, and Rumiton, that Cagan's book is to be treated as self-published for the purposes of the Wikipedia articles, and therefore should only be used for non-contentious information. Is anyone now arguing that it is published by a reliable publisher? If so, then surely ex-premie.org is back in? If that previous agreement is now thrown out, then any agreement that Steve mediates is equally transient. Steve, how do you propose that any such agreements stand the test of time? Are you willing to police the articles forever? Rawat's followers will serve him until their death or the day they become ex-premies. --John Brauns (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I will ignore your highly offensive last remarks. Consensus can change. Source can refer either to the author, the publisher, or the work itself. I previously agreed that PiP be restricted to non-controversial information, not because I considered the source (in this case the author) to be inferior, but because I considered the book to be biased. Since then so much even more extremely biased material and sources have been included (mainly by one editor) that objecting on these grounds has become absurd. Count me out of the previous consensus. I now posit that Cagan is a WP:RS in every respect. Rumiton (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously there will be a time where I do mark this case as . Until that time comes, I'll continue to mediate this case, and I won't rule out mediating it in future if needed. For now, please take note that in a week or so, I may be busier than normal, for a week or so. As for Cagan, I'm thinking it will be more likely that at a point, I'll just have to consider proposing a compromise for it's use. But I'll leave that when all other options have been exhausted. Steve Crossin   (contact)  08:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What an obnoxious statement to make John. And quite disgusting, really. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah... I see, some people here are maybe afraid that Cagan's book will be used as a source about the detractors. Is that the issue? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Jossi, the issue is that we, including you, had previously agreed that PIP is self-published, and therefore should only be used for non-contentious issues. You do remember agreeing to this don't you?  I do hope so because I don't really want to quote the diffs.  And which statement is disgusting?  Are you saying you won't serve him all your life?  I thought you would be proud to agree with me on this issue. --John Brauns (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that we have exhausted this debate. As with other sources, we shall conduct specific discussions about specific facts and opinions in Cagan's book in the context of specific edits. I move to close this discussion and get on with the proposals ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Jossi's proposal. We should re-establish that Cagan's book is self-published so that such long debates about content are unnecessary. --John Brauns (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Jossi, this isn't a meeting being conducted by using Robert's Rules of Order where you can move to close the meeting. John's right, it was previously agreed to limit the use of PIP.  I agree that we should so limit PIP's use as previously agreed.  Sylviecyn (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change. Since last discussion the book has been published by three additional independent and reputable publishers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's quite a misleading statement. No one else has published the book in english as far as I know. Republications in foreign languages do not lend more credence to this book's authority. And just curious, what research did you do to confirm the "independent and reputable" qualities of those foreign language publishers? -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 04:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Spanish Version, Editorial Dilema, in the book: "The version in English of this book can be requested to the publishing house Might River Press through the Web", sounds like a straighforward translation to me. No additional authors listed.
 * German Version/Alles Kultur, "The American best-seller authoress Andrea Cagan submits the first comprehensive Biografie of Prem Rawat", with Cagan again listed as the only author.
 * Portuguese version/ Editorial Magnolia,Same text as the German, translated almost verbatim again, Cagan listed as only author again.
 * No other fact checkers or additional authors listed. If it was different text, it wouldn't be the same book, and it would have additional authors listed. I see no reason to think these foriegn versions lend any more legitimacy (or any less) to Cagan's book. -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 05:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, but they do lend more. The insult implied by "self-published" and even more by "vanity published" is that the manuscript would be unlikely on its merits to recover publication costs. The fact that foreign publishing houses saw the English success of the book and paid for translations gives it the lie. This is a quality source. Rumiton (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rumiton, the politics are quite obvious: the only reason there such a long discussion about this book, is because it paints an horrendous picture of certain people, the motives and their actions. The discussion above is designed to impeach this source so that it cannot be used for that material. Politics and nothing else. Of course, that is my opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is a major assumption of bad faith by a number of editors. I'm not mentioned in the book, I wasn't part of producing the book, and I don't know anyone who has been. For you to assert that I'm opposed to using this book with its bizarre omissions as a reliable source has nothing to do with anything it says about your unnamed "certain people". In the future please keep your conspiracy theories on private TPRF forums, and remember to AGF when commenting on Wikipedia. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Jayen asked above:  So, after all this, and given that she does name sources, how would you propose Cagan be used? Not at all? With attribution only? 
 * I think that what we have here is the result of a few of Prem Rawat's followers under the auspices of TPRF putting together the money to hire a celebrity ghostwriter. She listened to tapes of talks by Rawat and others, and interviewed a few carefully-chosen current followers. The resulting book was published by the followers. What we have is essentially a self-published autobiography that contains obvious bias and has huge holes in it. She calls his palatial estate a "little house", records every honor he's ever received or paid for, yet neglects any mention of the subject's two main organizations. The omissions of the DLM and EV are so strange that this book nearly qualifies as a fringe source. (How many other publications that discuss the subject, whether by scholars, popular writers, or journalists, and no matter how short the piece, neglect to mention either organization?)
 * So how do we use it? The same way we'd use any similar source - as little as possible. It certainly can't be used at all for the articles on the DLM or EV since the book negates their existence. When it's used for the biography of Rawat, and when it quotes someone, we should provide double attribution, "According to X, as quoted in Cagan..." If it's not quoting a source I don't think we should use it at all. If there are other sources covering the same incidents then it isn't necessary, and if it's the only source for an incident then it isn't sufficient. Only when one of the interviewees has a significant viewpoint that we need to include about an already established event should we quote from the book. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Which house are you referring to Will? The one in the google photo or the little house that was pulled down in the early 90s. The organizations are adequately covered, PIP can be used in the DLM and EV articles if it is relevant. We don't make the newspaper articles say "Claimed by Morgan from an anonymous source" so why would we make Cagan?Momento (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I tell you what - we can use Cagan as a source for the DLM any time she mentions the DLM by name. As for the difference between Cagan and mainstream newspaper, PIP was printed by a one-book publisher while the newspapers are preinted by respected publishers. Per WP:V, that means the newspapers are reliable and Cagan is not. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If we accept the argument of Cagan's book being a self-published source (which I disagree is the case), we can still use Cagan for facts and figures not covered elsewhere without the need for attribution, and we can also quote Cagan for facts and figures that are mentioned elsewhere with full attribution if Cagan presents a competing view. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really, because the book has demonstrated errors so significant as to render the book unreliable. Please also see WP:V which says that the reliablity of books is judged by the reputations of their publishers. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Also note, that if the book was indeed published by "followers", it does not make it self-published. Same as many books written by followers of Meher Baba, i.e. his main biographer Purdon, was a follower and still his book is used extensively as a source in that article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Purdon's book was originally published by a respected publisher, Allen & Unwin, so the two cases aren't comparable. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Cagan reviews

 * I have found as many ways to work as there are clients. While each person thinks, creates and expresses differently, my initial task is similar to that of a detective - - to develop the most effective, comforting and productive method of interviewing I can find. I experiment with taping, taking notes, writing together with the client and apart, until we find the freedom and trust to tell an authentic story in the client's voice - - one of my most challenging and playful skills that make all the difference in the finished product. My main goal with my celebrity work is to pick up the voice and tell the story in a way that will leave the client feeling intelligently and authentically represented while inspiring the reader to keep turning those pages!
 * Cagan on Cagan: ''How I do it"

". . . [our] method involved Andrea’s [her collaborator, Andrea Cagan] giving me a foundation for each chapter by providing a list of topics she’d heard me discuss, at which point I’d write down my recollection or interpretation of that aspect of my life . . . Yup, these are my words, with the help of the runway, the mechanic, and the control tower. (Slick 1998, p. xi)"
 * Before discussing the ways that rock autobiographies have been received by critics and fans, I need to note a particular feature of most rock autobiographies. They are written collaboratively. Of course, many pop culture autobiographies are written collaboratively, as are a few ‘high culture’ life-stories. But how can an autobiography, by definition a story in which actor and author are understood to be one and the same, be written by – or, rather, ‘with’ – another? Most collaborative rock autobiographies list the musician’s name first and then add ‘with’, as in Be My Baby by Ronnie Spector with Vince Waldron (1990), and Faithfull (1994) by Marianne Faithfull with David Dalton. But what does it mean to write with another? How does collaboration work in these cases? What are the processes, advantages and problems? Grace Slick’s book gives us a bit of insight into her case in an ‘author’s note’, which I quote in part:
 * Slick goes on a bit more, suggesting that Cagan served only as an unusually active editor. Employing Slick’s metaphors, we are meant to understand that Slick did the actual ‘flying’ or writing.
 * "That’s Me in the Spotlight: rock autobiographies" by Thomas Swiss Popular Music (2005) Volume 24/2. Copyright © 2005 Cambridge University Press, pp. 287–294doi:10.1017/S0261143005000504 Printed in the United Kingdom


 * I used to feel bad about being born too late in the 1960's to absorb fully the signal... But by the end of Grace Slick's messy, muddled, indulgent and occasionally amusing autobiography, I'm kind of relieved I did miss most of it. ...Her reflections often read as if her collaborator, Andrea Cagan, scribbled in the margins of the manuscript, "PIs. insrt yr thots on 60's here."
 * "White rabbit" Alex Kuczynski New York Times Book Review; Sep 20, 1998; pg. 12


 * Slight but endearing, Somebody To Love? briefly catalogs Slicks highs (Woodstock,fucking Jim Morrison, going to the White House with Abbie Hoffman and a dose of acid for Nixon) and laws (Alog stalkers, DUIs). There appear to have been several pages let to fill, and they ve been added out with screeds on politics, taxes, and the plight of the panda bear. The autobiography makes good use of Slicks years as an alcoholic, rambling and reeling like a good-natured lush who's latched on to you in a bar. Since her '60s heyday is recalled so undramatically, it's Slicks life these days that stands out as the books most memorable aspect. Out of the public eye since 1989's brief Airplane reunion, she leads a mostly reclusive life in Malibu. Just another slob at the supermarket--and rails at length against aging.
 * "Somebody To Love? A Rock-and-Roll Memoir" John Sanchez. The Village Voice. New York: Sep 1, 1998. Vol. 43, Iss. 35; pg. 57, 1 pgs


 * The jury ruled in favor of Goldman and Barzano, but reduced their monetary award by 42 percent, assigning them that share of contributory blame. Goldman's final award was around $1 million. By the time her lawyer proposed she write a book, Goldman had blotted out many traumatic details. "For me, it was more about going on with life," she said, "and that's what I've been doing for the past 14 years. Once I started to work with Andrea (Cagan) and the tape recorder, that's when it started to come back."
 * "She lost her legs, not her heart;" CECELIA GOODNOW. Houston Chronicle. Houston, Tex.: Jan 30, 2002. pg. 1


 * Slick does a nice job of explaining the dynamic of her band, The Jefferson Airplane, and its place within rock history. She talks about how she loves the creative process of making a song in the studio, but she never takes us in there with her while the magic is being made. Perhaps she was too messed up to remember. She certainly forgot much of her recording chronology. There is precious little here about how her brother-in-law, Darby Slick, wrote "Somebody to Love" or about how she concocted the drug anthem "White Rabbit." Those songs pre-date her Jefferson Airplane years, even though it was only with them that they became hits. Slick skims over the years she spent with her first husband and the year or so she spent in her first band, seemingly anxious to get to the funny business with that warring family, the Airplane. ...But the battle-by-battle account of her ego-struggles with Airplane's Marty Balin, the only guy in the band who didn't sleep with her, is missing. And after she had - and squandered - a platform from which others, notably the Beatles, tried to change the world, it is hard to take her autumnal animal-rights activism seriously.
 * "ROCK ICON REFUSED TO ROLL WITH THE PUNCHES;" Roger Moore JOURNAL BOOK REVIEWER *Moore, a former Journal reporter, now writes from Florida.. Winston - Salem Journal. Winston-Salem, N.C.: Apr 18, 1999. pg. 20


 * Before the publication of "A Bend in the Road," people in this quandary were forced to muddle through on their own. But no more. We now have a guidebook by Joan Lunden, a true American success story, a woman who pulled herself up from the affluent suburbs of northern California to make something of herself. (Does not making prom queen count as hardship?)...Even if one could stomach this cliche-fest ("Stand Like a Mountain, Flow Like Water"), the photos ultimately do the thing in. Certainly Lunden is an attractive woman, with a younger boyfriend and a positive self-image. But does the world really need pictures of Joan in bed, Joan in cowboy dress, Joan bungee jumping, Joan dressed as a Las Vegas showgirl as part of one of her "Behind Closed Doors" specials?
 * "WAKE UP, JOAN LUNDEN YOUR EGO'S ENORMOUS, AND YOUR BOOK IS A BORE" KATHLEEN RIZZO YOUNG. Buffalo News. Buffalo, N.Y.: Nov 11, 1998. pg. D.1


 * Slick, 58, spearheaded a psychedelic scene that grew from a San Francisco phenomenon into an international movement, then became one of the few 1960s stars to weather the '70s by helping to transform the band into Jefferson Starship. And she's lived to tell the story in an autobiography, "Somebody to Love?," published this month by Warner Books and written with friend Andrea Cagan. The literary venture wasn't exactly her idea, though. "I didn't want to write a book. They made me do it," she said.
 * "People in the News;" Las Vegas Review - Journal. Las Vegas, Nev.: Sep 8, 1998. pg. 5.B


 * If what Robin Williams says is true -- that if you remember the '60s, you weren't really there -- Grace Slick was there after all. She certainly doesn't remember much in this tame, chatty memoir, short on details, absent of feeling, written in a perky style more appropriate to women's magazines like Redbook than a gritty rock 'n' roll survivor like Slick....The fear and shock Slick experienced is clearly visible in "Gimme Shelter," the film of that disastrous day, but don't look for it in "Somebody to Love?." In the end, she resorts to quoting Chronicle columnist Ralph J. Gleason rather than plumb her own emotions....This strange dissociation from her own life continues through discussions of her alcoholism and recovery -- even in episodes like her 1994 arrest by Mill Valley police, after she aimed an empty shotgun at officers summoned to her house by an equally inebriated boyfriend. Ranting about saving lab animals, she often comes off more like a harmless eccentric than a sharp intellect. But Grace Slick remains one of rock's great dames, even if she was coaxed into writing a book she didn't really put her heart into. (The reported advance for the book was $1 million). Her saucy rejoinders and libertine spirit have always been a refreshing blast of comic relief for a rock scene that customarily insists on taking itself much more seriously than it should. Too bad her book isn't more like her.
 * "A Not-So-Slick Memoir by Grace / The bright, insouciant voice of Jefferson Airplane's lead vocalist comes out flat;" REVIEWED BY Joel Selvin. San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco, Calif.: Sep 6, 1998. pg. 3


 * Most remarkable of all, she's lived to tell the story in a casual and often hilarious autobiography, "Somebody to Love?," published this month by Warner Books. Written with Slick's friend Andrea Cagan, the book is a conversational, languidly outrageous document of one of the best and worst times in American history. It's also a compendium of backstage gossip and loopy psychedelic philosophy....She admits, though, that the whole literary venture wasn't her idea. "I didn't want to write a book. They made me do it," she says. "About two years ago my lawyer told me, `You ought to be doing something.' I said, `I am doing something. I'm drawing and painting.' He said, `You ought to write a book.' I said, `I don't want to write a book.' But he gave me the name of an agent friend of his anyway. She talked my ear off for nine hours about how fabulous it would be. So I finally gave in."
 * "Gracefully Outrageous / Rock's original high priestess simply refuses to mellow with age;" Neva Chonin, Chronicle Staff Writer. San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco, Calif.: Sep 6, 1998. pg. 34


 * As entertaining as Somebody to Love? is -- and Gracie can dish dirt with the best of them -- fans of her more serious artistic side may be disappointed in how little the music is discussed. We learn which of the band members she slept with, and even how one of them is proportioned, but we aren't told her favorite songs, her most meaningful lyrics, or what she considers her artistic successes and failures. Which is a pity and a loss. Jefferson Airplane, and Grace Slick in particular, were among rock's most radical political voices during the '60s and early '70s. You wouldn't know it from reading this book. Grace is far more interested today in her animal rights activism than in revolution. In Somebody to Love? the sex and drugs are in plenitude. It's the rock and roll that is in meager supply.
 * "ROCK MUSIC;" Tom Graves. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Aug 9, 1998. pg. X.06


 * The bottom line, of course, is that mountain of legal bills, and [Heidi Fleiss] says her lawyers agreed to a slice of whatever advance she can get "because they know I'm sitting on a pot of gold." She's called in Andrea Cagan, who ghostwrote Marianne Williamson's best-selling "A Return to Love."
 * "IT WAS JUST SOME GALS AT THE DORM WITH NOTHING MUCH TO DO" From wire reports Compiled by F. VULIN - of The Oregonian staff. The Oregonian. Portland, Or.: May 19, 1995. pg. A.02


 * Convicted Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss says she's considering asking writer Andrea Cagan to help pen Fleiss' long-anticipated memoirs. Interesting, since Cagan's last ghostwriting gig was for a far different personality: New Age guru to the stars, Marianne Williamson's best-selling Return to Love.
 * Fleiss Checks Out Ghost-Writer to the Stars" Bill Zwecker. Chicago Sun - Times. Chicago, Ill.: May 16, 1995. pg. 30

More discussion
Very few of the reviews of Cagan's previous books have actually addressed the writing or research. (In addition to co-writing biographies with celebrities she's also cowritten a book with a celebrity dog trainer and written a book on how to apply cosmetics.) These are the only reviews I've found that actually get into the writing process. None of them do anything to add to Cagan's credence. She seems to have been mostly engaged in transcribing and polishing the tape-recorded reminiscences of Malibu residents. The fact that some of the books she's co-written has been best sellers is obviously due to the fame of the memoirists and not to her own skills as a writer or researcher. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What's the point of this? Are we going to critique the The Oregonian?Momento (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The point is that Cagan's previous efforts have not been lauded. While her clients may have led interesting lives, their books are noted for their omissions. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether her books have been lauded or not is immaterial, we don't subject other sources to that subjective criteria.Momento (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure we do. If scholars cite a paper by another scholar it gains credence in the academic world. In this case, the publisher of PIP has no reputation whatsoever. The presumed reliability of the book rests on Cagan's shoulders alone. Is she up to the task of researching the life of an Indian guru who lead a controversial life that involves complicated spiritual and organizational issues? Well, some reviewers thought she wasn't up to the task of writing biographies of Joan Lunden or Grace Slick, people with whom she has far more in common. Further, we can see that in her own statement she acknowledges that her method is to basically interview her subjects, not conduct research. That's why I think it's appropriate to treat this as an autobiography. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that an autobiography is written by the subject of the biography. In this case it wasn't.Momento (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It was compiled from tapes by the subject. It certainly does no reflect independent research or viewpoints. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh? That is not what the author says. Sure, Cagan used transcripted speeches for the quotes she mined and published in the book. 99% of the book is sourced to direct witnesses that went on the record. Excellent authorship ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OMG, now we are in the business of literary critique. Although I appreciate the effort of Will Beback in listing reviews of Cagan's other books, I would argue that the strenous effort to diminish her standing as an author, while turning a blind eye to other sources biases and mis-information, is quite innapropiate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The point I think that is being made is that if editors want to assert that PIP should be considered a reliable source for the Rawat article, only based on it's purported "commercial success," which would require information about the publisher's initial print run and purchases, (where's the source for that?) then it's equally valid for an editor to demonstrate that many of Cagan's books were indeed not critical successes, based on the reviews above, the most important of which would be the New York Times Book Review. As far as I can tell, PIP wasn't even reviewed by the NYT Book Review, which is the hallmark for the success of any published work by an author in the U.S.  PIP also did not it make the NYT's bestseller list, another hallmark of a book and author's success in the U.S. and abroad. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To Jossi: We're not discussing other sources' biases or misinformation here. You've started threads about the biases of Foss & Larkin, Momento likes to mention how inaccurate the New York Times is, etc. This thread is about Cagan. The reason that it's important to consider reviews of her work is that she is the sole source of reliability for PIP. The publisher has no reputation for reliability. But here we find that Cagan has been accused by reviewers of major omissions and muddled writing. So we have a book published by a one-time publisher created by followers who've hired a celebrity ghostwriter known for mediocre writing. On the other hand, WP:V tells us to judge books by the reputations of their publishers. Following that policy leads us to the conclusion that PIP is not reliable. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, Will. The quotes you post do not support your contentions, but we are getting used to that. The criticisms are mostly directed toward the subjects of the autobiographies. Cagan comes across as an editor helping non-writers to write, but having to accept what they wanted to put in their own life-stories. Anyway, this is not an autobiography. And WP:RS "tells us" that the word "source" can refer to the publisher, the author, or the work itself. Any one of them can validate a reference. This work is thoroughly validated. Rumiton (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:RS says: Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. This is non-academic, but it isn't from a respected mainstream publication. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * More of the same. "Particularly" is not the same as "only." Cagan has an established reputation as a biographer, even if it may not be unanimous. Rumiton (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please find a 3rd-party source that says Cagan has a reputation for research and reliability. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please find a 3rd-party source that says that the sources we use in these articles have a reputation for research and reliability. 05:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Personal opinions do not count here. By all measures this is a book that can be used as a source for this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Personal opinions do not count here. There would not be this much discussion over a book that "by all measures" can be used. The statement is almost humourous placed at the end of the vast amount of discussion regarding it already on this page. -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 21:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly not by "all measures". The most important measure, per WP:V is the reputation of the publisher, and that's non-existent in this case. The book has huge, unexplained omissions, and obvious bias. By "no measures" can it be used as a source. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We have already discussed your argument about "omissions" which is your personal opinion. We have also discussed the fact that it is a sympathetic biography (although it does not spare the inclusion of numerous controversies). SO, I do not understand the repeating of the same arguments. What is obvious, that per policy, the book can be used as follows: for facts and figures not covered elsewhere without the need for attribution, for facts and figures that are mentioned elsewhere with full attribution if Cagan presents a competing view. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not my opinion that Cagan never refers to the DLM or EV by name even once. It's not my opinion that WP:V tells us to evaluate books based on the reputations of their publishers. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I note too that you're setting an lower bar for the use of Cagan then you've set for far more reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What is your problem with the three independent publishers that have published the book in three European countries? What is your problem with a book about the life of PR that does not mention two organizations which he did not found? And if you speak of double standards, look at the mirror and see how you defend sources that are obviously biased and/or misleading. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The disassociation of Rawat with the DLM and EV is a fringe viewpoint. How many reliable sources about Rawat that are longer than a few paragraphs fail to mention either organization? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ???? What does have anything to do with this discussion? Cagan chose not to mention these organizations, sure. So what? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It does mention the "organization", just not by name, though key personnel like Mishler are referred to, by name, with reference to their role in the organization, and the org's notable exploits like Millennium. The DLM was founded when Rawat was a minor; at one point, the org apparently told him he needn't show up in the office, because he was a minor. So I don't have a major beef with the name not being mentioned in this bio. Like Vassyana said elswhere in a different context, a source's bias does not make it unreliable or unusable per se, it just requires circumspection in how to use it. I think we should concentrate on parameters for that, rather than arguing all or nothing. At any rate, it seems not right to want to exclude the one recent biography of the man there is. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 06:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to remind editors that that saying "So what?" isn't an argument. The fact is that Cagan doesn't name Prem Rawat's organization(s) Divine Light Mission and Elan Vital makes the author less credible as a biographer. That is an enormous omission of fact in a book that's being purported as "the most complete...exhaustively researched biography of Prem Rawat."  This article is about the leader of an NRM.  The author of the biography chose to omit the name of the NRM.  That's a huge omission in a non-fiction work.   If Cagan calls the NRM organizations "the organizations" and doesn't name them, one cannot assume which organizations to which she refers, just because someone already knows the names of the organizations!  Omissions of fact are the same as omissions by lying.  It's still a lie; it's still misleading by the author.   Sylviecyn (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to Jayen: Prem Rawat was an emancipated minor at age 16 and that would have occurred in December 1973 (he was married in 74) therefore he was a legal adult. He was also, for a time, the legally named, "Chief Minister" of Divine Light Mission in the U.S. That changed eventually, but he was legally attached to the organization, DLM. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The article on which all of us here are working states confidently, albeit without a source, that Rawat became an emancipated minor in April 1974, aged 16. The Indian DLM was founded in 1960, and the US branch formed in 1971. Please provide sources for his "legal attachment" to the DLM. These might be useful for the DLM article. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 13:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder to please try to limit the use of where possible. It makes it impossible to read on a cellphone. And could someone please answer this. Thanks.  Steve Crossin   (contact)  05:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Jayen, we have plenty of sources for the subject becoming emanicapted at age 16 . As for the relevance of the DLM, it was the family business. The family lived in the DLM ashram. When the subject (not his father) came to the U.S. and U.K. branches of the DLM were founded to support his work. The DLM bought him expensive homes, cars, and planes. It organized festivals to honor him, set up ashrams to house his followerss, and published magazines devoted to him. And Rawat didn't sit in a trance while these things were happening. He attended DLM meetings and he gave orders (agyas) on DLM stationary about the conduct of DLM business. There is a claim that Rawat fired Mishler, president of the DLM. How could he have done that if he didn't control the DLM? I cannot see any legitimate reason for a biographer to make the bizarre "choice" to ignore the organiztion that was so closely associated with her subject.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC) (First assertion struck through due to later discoveries. -W)
 * Jayen, we have plenty of sources for the subject becoming emanicapted at age 16. Yes, and we say that happened in April 1974. A source that names that month might be useful to add to the article. As for ignoring the organization, honestly, have you read the book? I haven't read it from cover to cover, but just skimming through it, it describes various conflicts he had with Mishler, Dettmers and so on. How can you say it ignores the organization? The book describes him complaining about it, and about his deputies wanting to impose their own agenda on him. The sense that comes through is that he did not feel adequately represented by them.  Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 18:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So why did the biographer fail to name the "organization"? What organization is Rawat complaining about? What organization did he feel inadequately represented by? Jossi is arguing that Rawat had nothing to with the DLM. Do you agree with that position? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Indian DLM was founded in 1960, when Rawat was 2 or 3; clearly he had nothing to do with founding it. The U.S. DLM was started up in 1971, when Rawat was 13; again, it seems implausible that he would have taken a leading role in that, and we have sources that say that his family managed the movement's business and legal affairs in the early years. So he clearly set up neither the Indian nor the U.S. Mission, and it seems that from 1974 through 1976 he parted company with most everyone who had ever held a leading position in the DLM.
 * One thing I trust we are all agreed on, Jossi included, is that the Mission promoted him as its guru.
 * Note that even if Cagan's book did have Rawat claim that he had nothing to do with the NRM known as DLM, that in itself would be notable and of interest in his bio.
 * And have you read the book now or not? -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 22:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that, by analogy, because the Charles V didn't establish the Holy Roman Empire it's natural for a biographer to avoid mentioning it? When you say Rawat "parted company with most everyone who had ever held a leading position in the DLM" - how did that happen? Are you saying he had no involvement with the hirings and firings of DLM executives? Are you denying that he wrote a letter on DLM stationary addressed to all premies? Why would he do so if he had no involvement in it? Are you denying that he attended meetings at the DLM HQ, or that his home in Malibu was the called DLM HQ for a time? Note that the book doesn't mention the EV either. Are you saying he had nothing to do with the change in name or organizational structure? That he was just a bystander to all of the organizational events between his designation as leader of the DLM and some time in the 21st century? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * She does mention the org, that it existed, who ran it, etc., but does not mention the name. So that would be like a book on Charles V, the man, referring to his empire, and to his ministers, but not to the "Holy Roman Empire." If it gives me insight into the man, I would still read it. All the other things that you are wondering whether I am saying them I am not saying, and I frankly marvel why you would think I might, because they are completely absurd suggestions. Just bear in mind that Rawat was obviously unhappy with the DLM, he had no input in how it started, because he was too young, then he tried to take it over and alter it, and then he dismantled it. If you haven't read Cagan, it might help to get hold of a copy. Some of its content may be useful to editors, regardless of POV. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What "org" does she mention? If Rawat dismantled the DLM what was established in its place, and by whom? As for the book, I've read it before and I have a copy in my possession now. Please feel free to quote any pages in which she mentioned the DLM or the EV. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Too late over here to go through the book now, but see page references given in the book's index for Mishler, Dettmers, Houston/Millennium etc. Or search for Cagan Frieden in amazon.de and use the Search Inside function to look for the word "organisation". At a quick glance, she mentions several orgs founded by his dad, as well as orgs in the US, UK, Scandinavia, South America and Australia. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 00:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Without any entries in the index it's hard to find. The first one I can find is on page 185. It mentions the Paris Peace Accords, which were signed in January 1973. Then it goes on to say:
 * But there were no peace accords within Maharaji's family, and antagonism s were building within the organization that had been set up to finance and manage his tours, now led by Bob Mishler.
 * That's just plain weird. Does anyone think that the proper description of the DLM is an organization set up to finance and manage tours? That all of the scholars who've called it a new religious movement, a sect, a cult, etc, were all wrong - it was really a travel agency? And what does "now led by Bob Mishler" [emphasis added] mean? Who was there before Mishler? How and when was it founded? And what of the U.K. DLM? It doesn't even get a backhanded mention as 'the organization' - it's just doesn't even exist. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cagan refers generally to "organizations" in many chapters in the book. For example on Page 61 -63 describes an organization set up by Hans Ji Maharaj devotees as being registered in Patna, but she does not mention the name. That may be weird to you, but it seems that Cagan did not see the need to describe its name, maybe as to make a distinction between the message of father and son, and the organizations that were set up on their behalf. The only exception is The Prem Rawat Foundation, which is described along the lines that "he created The Prem Rawat Foundation".  Not "weird", actually maybe to make a point. A writer's license. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and how did the DLM manage to go out of business and the EV originate? That just happened with no input from Rawat? Writers of fiction can write whatever they like but we don't use those as sources for biographies. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I can think of two very good reasons not to name the organizations that supported Rawat. One is that DLM India and DLM UK were never under Rawat's control and were antagonistic towards him. And two, there were many organizations that supported Rawat, for example in Malaysia there was Prime Academy, in Singapore the Society for Insight, in Greece the Art of Life etc.Momento (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Source? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The source is reality. Momento (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's good for a laugh. Unfortunately, "reality" isn't an acceptable source for Wikipedia biographies of living persons. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please try to follow the conversation. We're not talking what an amateur  Wikipedia editor has access to but what a real author has access to. Cagan is not limited to already published material, Cagan can talk to dozens of eye witnesses. She would very quickly establish facts that have never been published. The reality is that there have been numerous organizations that have helped Rawat that were not called DLM. Cagan would know this, even if you don't.Momento (talk) 10:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there anyone here who thinks that "the organization that had been set up to finance and manage his tours" is a correct description of the Divine Light Mission? Can anyone seriously argue that that isn't a fringe theory? Can anyone find a single other source that describes the DLM that way? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How about these descriptions from Foss and Larkin that are roundly criticized by Kemeny. They described DLM as "... a highly incongruent, even self-contradictory organization" and "... the ultimate parody of bureaucracy in the wider society" (159) other than to define it as "... a centralized bureaucracy with rampant titleism .. ." and to argue that the main function of the staff was to monitor its own activities (159)".Momento (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, those don't seem anything like Cagan's description. If you want to discuss Foss & Larkin let's start a separate thread. Again, getting back to Cagan, does anything think that "the organization that had been set up to finance and manage his tours" is a correct description of the Divine Light Mission? Can anyone seriously argue that that isn't a fringe theory? Can anyone find a single other source that describes the DLM that way? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, this is sounding like a trick question, but uhm,.. could the source be reality? (I know, I know, I know, but I just couldn't resist, I'm already sorry :) ) -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 06:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I for one think it is a correct and factual description, and I am amazed that it should be contentious. Clearly, Rawat travelled a lot, and still does. He travelled with a large entourage, and from continent to continent. That costs money, especially when private planes are bought and maintained to facilitate that incessant travel, when the organisation buys or rents – sometimes at great expense – venues for speaking engagements in various continents, when it books whole floors of hotels to accommodate the speaker and his entourage, etc. In fact I would think it very strange if anyone asserted that the financing and managing of festivals etc. all over the world wasn't the main business function of organisations such as the DLM, Raj Vidya Kendra etc. We have ample sources – including Cagan, by the way – saying that the DLM was in serious debt after Millennium. They were in debt because they financed and managed that particular event, were they not?
 * Having said that, I would not advocate that Wikipedia should describe DLM as an "organization set up to finance and manage Prem Rawat's speaking tours", period, to the exclusion of any other attested descriptions in reliable sources. But I think it is a valid and factual description of something the DLM did. And btw, even I knew that Rawat's organizations have had different names in different countries, and that neither the DLM nor the EV moniker is or was universal. I am sure sources can be provided, but they won't come from the LA Times. I don't think the U.S. media were or are much interested in what Rawat was or is up to in South America, Africa or East Asia. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 09:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayen, your opinions are always welcome and respected. There's no doubt that one of the many roles the DLM fulfilled was that of arranging his tours. Likwise, the Roman Catholic Church arranged the tours of John Paul II. Would anything think of describing the RCC, in a biography of JPII, only as "an organization that arranged his tours"? It is true but it is so insufficeint as to be essentially false. The topic here is the reliability of Cagan. Cagan chooses to not mention any branch of the Divine Light Mission (Indian, U.S., U.K., Swiss, etc.) and also foregoes any mention of the Elan Vital. To the extent that she refers to the DLM at all she does so in a strange manner that Jayen wouldn't even want to see repeated in Wikipedia. I'll mention again the close association between the subject and the DLM/EV described in virtually every source we have except for Cagan. It's anomolous when one source (commissioned and published under dubious circumstances) presents a radically different picture from the sources of unquestioned reliability. Cagan doesn't mention financing festivals. She doesn't mention regulating ashrams. She doesn't mention the WATS lines, the TELEXES, the IBM computer, or the $1 million budget. We all acknowledge that scholars are the best sources, followed by journalists. Cagan, with these bizarre omissions and descriptions, isn't even in the same spectrum. She's an expert on cosmetic application, not Indian spiritual movements or their leaders.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, the major defining difference between Rawat and DLM, and the Pope and the RCC is that without Rawat there is no DLM whereas without the RCC there is no Pope. Apart from that "bizarre omission" you almost made an analogy.Momento (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's just plain wrong. The DLM predated Rawat. Upon the death of the father it wasn't obvious or automatic that the youngest son would succeed to the role of guru and leader. In fact, the DLM has continued in a more similar form under Prem Rawat's eldest brother who may have the larger following. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Will, you're preaching to the converted. I didn't say DLM "predated" Rawat, I said " without Rawat there is no DLM". And that, of course, is absolutely true, there hasn't been a DLM without a Rawat. A Rawat started DLM and a Rawat ended it. Popes can't do that and that is why a pope will always be subservient to the RCC, whereas Sant style gurus find organizations a hindrance and happily destroy them.Momento (talk) 11:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And there hasn't been an HRE emperor without a Bourbon or Hohenzollern. They're family businesses. So say many sources, except for Cagan. And that's the core of the problem. Cagan has an ideosyncratic view of the verifiable facts. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * She is not an expert, but she had journalistic access to various sources close to the subject, which adds value. I've got to do some work now and will come back to this later, but note that her book includes many mentions of the ashrams set up to further Rawat's teachings. I am not arguing that she should be considered more reliable than a quality newspaper where her account and that in the paper contradict each other. Just that she is one more source worth looking at. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 10:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * She had access, though not to her subject. I don't know what "journalistic" would mean in this context. She didn't seem to make any effort to interview those with contrasting opinions, as journalists typically do. The book has worth (even toilet paper has worth), only it's so low that it is not worth using much for Wikipedia. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would you bother to speak to people with contrasting opinions when you can read their opinions from a safe distance. Cagan's book, Peace is Possible, the life and message of Prem Rawat, is an excellent source. She is a successful biographer and it's clear she talked to people who have been very close to Rawat. It provides a wealth of information not covered by popular media and relgious scholars.Momento (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Blogs provide wealths of viewpoints too but they're not reliable sources either. Cagan's PIP omits any direct discussion about the most important organizations in the subject's life. To the extent it mentions them it does so in a strange and distorted way. Due to those and other weird choices by the author the book is not a reliable source except for itself. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In the U.S. the ashrams were Divine Light Mission ashrams under the control of Prem Rawat, DLM and its agents, including mahatmas, initiators, instructors, or anyone else in a position of authority in DLM/EV. Cagan's neglect to mention the name of the organization DLM/EV is very poor authorship of non-fiction.  Cagan's omission of the name of the NRM, DLM/EV is tantamount to someone writing a biography of Sun Myung Moon and omitting the name of the Unification Church, L. Ron Hubbard, and leaving out the Church of Scientology, Maharishi and leaving out TM Organization, and Sathya Sai Baba and leaving out Sathya Sai Organization.  The argument set forth by Jayen that DLM was set up for speaking tours and travel only is just simply wrong and incorrect.  Read the articles of incorporation.  It's designated as a church in the U.S first as DLM, now named EV.  Besides, AITTA (operated by Joe Anctil, DLM's spokesperson, first located in Denver, and later situated right next door to the Miami Beach, FL DLM headquarters) was the travel agency that facilitated travel for this NRM. Not DLM. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The argument set forth by Jayen that DLM was set up for speaking tours and travel only is just simply wrong and incorrect.  About as wrong and incorrect as asserting that that is what I said above. ;-) I believe though that the events where Rawat spoke were very major occasions for premies, and that their preparation and organisation, as well as advance publication, PR and subsequent DLM-internal reporting on them, constituted a major part of what the DLM organisation did. If I'm wrong there, do tell me. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 16:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, the DLM organized his tours. But it also organized festivals, ran ashrams, produced movies, published magazines, employed 250 at its HQ (50 of whom were on its public relations team), and so on. Can anyone find a single other source that describes the DLM this way? I doubt it and that's one reason why I say this is a fringe source. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rawat spoke at the festivals; the festivals were based around his appearances, which were their high point. The magazines reported his speeches, the PR team, again, publicised his speaking and teaching. Yes, they also ran ashrams, which Cagan mentions many times. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 19:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayen, you're absolutely correct but the events and travel were only a part of it. DLM/EV is the NRM's name of which Prem Rawat has been a leader since he came to the U.S.  That's why the omission of its name in a biography of Prem Rawat demonstrates what an incredible  hack job was done by Cagan.  It's inexcusable to call it a well-researched, exhaustive biography of an NRM leader and then omit the NRM's name.  The majority of people don't know who Prem Rawat or "Guru Maharaj Ji" or "Maharaji" is.  Most people have never heard of him or or of DLM/EV.  Rawat (and his many a/k/a's) is not a household name nor is he a celebrity, that's why the book is so terribly misleading to the casual reader.  Sure, as editors of these Wiki articles, we know what orgs. she means, but not so with any casual reader of her book.  Btw, if memory serves, the date Cagan gets wrong in the book is the date of the December 19, 1976 Atlantic City, New Jersey program.  She cites it as December 20th.  That's why I said it was minor, but still, it's factual error. Previous discussion about it is somewhere in the archives, but I don't have time to search for it right now.  Cheers. Sylviecyn (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You said in your earlier post (12:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC), Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_24) that "if Cagan lists the Atlantic City program as December 20, 1976, then she's mistaken. The program occurred on December 19, 1976, according to quotes in The Living Master and other sources. December 20, 1976 is the day Rawat held the Coordinator's Conference in Atlantic City." Cagan on page 216 merely says that on Dec 20 1976, Maharaji reiterated some priorities to his disciples, and added "that he could provide guidance and inspiration to people and that the organization had to leave him free to do so". The nature of his comments is consistent with the occasion having been the coordinator's meeting which you say took place on the date Cagan gives (20 Dec). Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 21:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It may be that Cagan read part of one of Geaves' papers on Rawat and got confused. He says of the Elan Vital:
 * There was no membership, but a small number of paid and unpaid volunteers who looked after organisational matters such as Prem Rawat's tours, ftnance, legal affairs, public relations, and communication.
 * Confusing the Divine Light Missin with the Elan Vital is a major error, but at least it makes more sense than describing the DLM as a travel agency. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The book does not pretend to be a consummate history of the movements Rawat established. Its focus is more personal, describing much of his family life and origins, intimate episodes of his non-public life, etc. Accordingly, the movements are covered more from the point of view of how they impacted on him personally. For example, while the movement names in the various countries aren't mentioned, in a number of cases the name of the national organisation's main coordinator is given. There is even the occasional self-critical look back at his own youth from Rawat.


 * As promised, I've had a look at what references to the various orgs there are in the book. This is, I believe, a pretty complete summary:
 * p.61-63: Rawat's father setting up the first Indian org, his troubles with it, plus Rawat's troubles with his family over the Indian org later on
 * p.82-85: minor mentions of the Indian org in relation to the succession
 * p.99 Rawat being out of the loop in the Indian org, due to his youth
 * p.137 mentions that Glen Whitaker later ran the UK org
 * p.162 mentions Mishler later becoming main US organizer
 * p.179 Ole Grünbaum becoming main organizer in Scandinavia
 * p.182 Rawat and "the organization" being accused and then cleared of smuggling charges in India
 * p.185 conflicts between Rawat and his family, and between Rawat and the U.S. organization led by Mishler over the direction to take; "More and more, Maharaji was not the only one setting the direction of his work ... The organization's efforts to finance and support the work were taking on a life of their own, and internal tensions ... started manifesting"
 * p.190-191 internal politics in the org, Rawat schedules meeting which doesn't take place because of his illness, feels strangled by the org
 * p.193 US org in dire financial straits after Millennium
 * p.198-199 US org tells Rawat that as an Indian minor unfamiliar with the West, he needn't come to the office, they will manage everything; org then says it was a mistake and change their mind
 * p.205 Mataji and BBJ secure properties of Indian org
 * p.210 Chilean org accused of being communist after Pinochet takeover
 * p.213-214 US org wants Rawat to be just a figurehead (1976), breakdown of relationship with Mishler who becomes hostile
 * p.216 Rawat wants US org to leave him free to do his thing
 * p.218-219 org works on developing resources to hold events and publish materials, org audited (1977) and found to be in order, as in other inquiries prompted by detractors over the years
 * p.220-221 US org charters and leases planes, various troubles with planes lead to decision to buy own plane
 * p.251 Rawat falls out with Dettmers, who suggested he charge for knowledge; Dettmers goes on to make defamatory statements
 * p.282 UK charity commission inquiry, UK org cleared, Macgregor, Australian org cleared
 * p.320 "Rawat has developed an infrastructure so that anyone, anywhere can enjoy the message and if they so wish, prepare to learn the techniques of Knowledge."


 * Page 281 also has a paragraph on the Daily Californian articles we discussed a while back. "The paper's editor later acknowledged the error" slightly overstates the case; the paper merely put out a correction that they had erroneously described Rawat as the "head of Elan Vital Inc.", while Cagan creates the impression that the paper's apology was rather more substantial.
 * So after another "88KB of handwringing", and having looked at the book some more, I suggest we treat Cagan more or less as a self-published source, to be used with circumspection: fine to use where not unduly self-serving, with relevance to notability of any statements cited to the book to be established by mentions in a second source. I think that will still leave us enough to discuss and fight over. :-) -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 00:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that research, that's awsesome. Before we draw a conclusion let's take a little time to review what you've compiled. It may be next week before I can sit down and see what Cagan says about the "organization(s)". ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I finally looked up the Wiki definition of "self published" and was lead to this - A vanity press or vanity publisher is a publishing house that publishes books at the author's expense. Do we have any evidence that Cagan paid for the printing? If she didn't, how can the book be "self published"?Momento (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It was paid for tbe the followers of the subject. That's essentially self-published. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Essentially self published" isn't good enough. If Cagan didn't pay for it to be published, it isn't self published.Momento (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's one opinion. An alternative is that we don't allow it at all becuase it's so erroneous, incomplete and biased. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's the opinion of Wikipedia. And your other arguments have already been eliminated - no errors have been presented, all other accepted sources are incomplete and numerous biased sources have been accepted. This argument is over.Momento (talk) 04:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No errors? It is incorrect to describe the DLM is "the organization that had been set up to finance and manage his tours". It is incorrect to view the DLM as so unimportant to the life of Prem Rawat that it doesn't merit mentioning by name. We're still finding more mistakes. The author has no reputation for quality writing and the publisher has no reputation whatsoever. At best we might use it in limited ways like we'd use a self-published source, but that's iffy. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Time to end this discussion

 * Every reason to limit the use of Peace is Possible, the biography of Prem Rawat by Andrea Cagan has been exhausted. According to Wiki it is not self published. Unless anyone can come up with something new and substantial, we should move on. It is no more biased, erroneous or incomplete than the majority of sources use in this article. Momento (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Momento, if a person or organisation pays a writer to write a biography, and then publishes that biography using a publishing house created for that purpose then the biography is clearly self-published. That is what has happened in this case. I agree it is time to end this discussion - Peace is Possible is without doubt self-published.  --John Brauns (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's just keep with the Wikipedia definition of self published not yours.Momento (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's. - "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, ..... are largely not acceptable." --John Brauns (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Anyone can create a website," however, not all websites continuously operate for ten solid years as is the case with Ex-Premie.org. One cannot propose to end a discussion when no concensus has yet been reached on the subject. Therefore, I propose that this discussion continue until such a time as concensus has been reached. The Cagan book is not a reliable source for all the reasons listed in the discussions here.   Let's keep on talkin'.  That's the whole purpose of this mediation:  to argue the issues until they're settled. It would be more civil an polite if Rawat adherents would discontinue their practice of ending discussion thusly.  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think Momento might be right, it seems on the face of it, that we have arrived at a consensus, which is that we cannot arrive at a consensus that Cagan is an acceptable source. I think we would all agree on that. Therefore, Cagan should not be used, and to quote Momento again, let's move on. -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 15:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I agree, but I'm not sure. Based on what you're saying is that using Cagan for any past, current, or future proposals can't be allowable, except on very basic things, which means material in the existing article using Cagan as a source must be removed and re-argued.  That's based on my understanding of what you're saying.  :)  Sylviecyn (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well that was horrible writing on my part. I don't think any concensus has been reached, therefore, Cagan cannot be used in the article for any purpose, since there are minor errors and major omissions in her book.  ???  Sylviecyn (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If we regard the book as self-published we might be able to use parts of it. If we don't regard it as self-published then there's little reason to use any of it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The attempt to validate PIP in terms of additional 'publishers' is ridiculous, not only are the works involved mere word for word translations but at least two of the touted entities are linked to Rawat supporting entities. Alles Cultur lists www.soulchill.com, www.woptv.de and www.elanvital.org as partners  and the claimed publisher Editorial Dilema is merely a reseller - the publisher of the Portuegese translation is Bajo el Alma  . I find it very difficult to believe that Jossi was not aware of these connections and if he wasn't it rather suggests a serious lack of awareness of the subject - either way, and even with assuming good faith, his arguments are seriously undermined by the omission to detail the Rawat links when arguing for validation through additional publisher editions.


 * I would also add that the Carrie Andrews issue, while revealing yet another link to Prem Rawat (why was the not for profit TPRF paying CA to fact check a privately published book ? And was that not somewhat unfortunate as the 'for profit' publisher operates from a business address shared by a Director of TPRF ?)does not help with the question of fundamental accuracy of Cagan's work. A fact checker does not carry out primary research, but merely assesses the accuracy of the content as provided, partial content will only be partially accurate even after the fact checker has done their work.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Other thread

 * Regarding emancipation, the most specific source I can find says:
 * The guru needed a court order to obtain a marriage license since he's too young to be married in Colorado without parental permission. Juvenile Court Judge Morris E. Cole issued the order and the license was obtained Friday from the city clerk's office. Cole interviewed the couple for 15 minutes in his chambers before issuing the court order May 7. The guru's father is dead and his mother couldn't be reached in India to give her consent. Cole said the boy "makes quite a bit of money and he seems quite mature—much older than 16."  "Guru, 16, marries secretary" AP Tues. May 21, 1974 Greeley Tribune
 * I don't see any that say he was made an "Emancipated Minor", just that he was given permission to marry by a judge in lieu of permission from his parents. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Read Cagan. I have provided a quotation from the book in main article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (btw, Emancipated_minor ) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that just does more to impeach Cagan as a reliable source. Why would he need permission to marry in May if he'd been made an emancipated minor in April? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion migrated to Talk:Prem Rawat. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Jossi, the failure to mention the DLM or EV in a book-length biography of the subject makes it virtually a fringe source. We have at least a hundred reliable sources about the subject - how many of those choose "not to mention these organizations"? As I said before, it'd be like a biographer of John D. Rockefeller choosing not to mention Standard Oil, or a biographer of Charles V choosing not to mention the Holy Roman Empire. If she had bothered to explain her "choice" it might be explicable, but she didn't and it's inexplicable. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why you keep making the same argument. Cagan may have had a reason, and we can speculate about it as much as we want, and yet that speculation is just that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, she may have had a reason or not. All we can judge is the effect of here "choice", which is a bizarrely-incomplete biography that fails to menion his father's organization or the organizatons that he led and that paid his bills for decades. While Cagan is free to make her coices, we have to make ours. It's impossible to see how a book can be considered an acceptable, 3rd-party source when the author makes weird choices like that. See the critical reception of Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan, an authorized biography whose author made a similarly weird choice (though at least he explained it). Do we use that book as a source for the life of Reagan? Nope, even though it was the result of interviews with Reagan and was published by a major publisher. Weird choices have their consequences. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weird, maybe for you. You did not write the book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And apparently not weird for you, since some of your first edits to this encyclopedia were to delete any mention of the DLM from the Prem Rawat biography. Fortunately, Wikipedia is not edited exclusively by people who make such weird decisions. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP is a learning process. I think knowing what they do now, a fair number of editors would consider their earliest edits here cringeworthy. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. But these particular edits exhibit the same strange bias as Cagan does in her book, which is the discussion here. Jossi says that omission of the DLM isn't weird, but we have to take that personal opinion in the context of his repeated deletions of any mention of the DLM from the Wikipedia biography. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's Jossi's problem, not mine. And apart from that, it seems Jossi has long overcome it, since I don't recall him arguing in recent or even not-so-recent history that DLM/EV references should be removed. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said it was your problem - I was responding to Jossi's assertion that omitting the DLM from a biography of Prem Rawat isn't weird. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty clear Jossi hasn't overcome it, since he is now advocating the use of the same viewpoint, only promoted by someone else to the same end result. -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 00:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Weird" is a very subjective word. I cannot see any reason why the name of the organisation should be deliberately omitted, nor any advantage to be gained from it. I would just call it imperfect editing, which is not an uncommon thing. It is still clear in the text which organisation is being referred to. This example is by no means bad enough to discredit the whole book. Rumiton (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Weird may be subjective to a point, but it applies in this case I think. One obvious reason to omit the name of the DLM/EV is to avoid any stigma that may or may not be attached to it, that's not imperfect editing that's biased POV editing. It is not clear from the text which organisation is being referred to, unless someone already has a previous knowledge of the DLM. Previous to working on these articles, I would not have known what organisation was being referred to. I had never heard of PR, DLM, EV, or the Millenium Event, etc. I think DLM/EV are inextricably wound to the story of PR's history, and there's really no valid reason to keep their names out of his biography, unless you want to skew towards a much more sympathetic viewpoint of PR. I could tell an interesting history of someone named Frank Biller, and how he helped thousands of people buy homes, and helped by lending money to people when others wouldn't, etc, but if I left out the part where he was vice-president of the Eron Mortgage Corporation, it's not really an accurate picture. (Eron Mortgage Corporation was shut down due to massive defrauding of investors, Biller went to jail for 3 years) -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 16:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a rather poisonous comparison, Maelefique, and I must object to it. It could be taken as an attempt at guilt by association. The DLM has never, afaik, been convicted of any wrongdoing, and Elan Vital, its successor, certainly has not. If it were otherwise I could understand why this author might wish to conceal the connection with the subject, but as things stand I still must put it down to plain old sloppy editing. A literary offense, to be sure, but not a hanging one. Rumiton (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "guilt be association" in this context, I'm not trying to say that the example and Prem Rawat's story have any details in common, but the omission of DLM/EV from a book that claims to be *the* biography of his life is certainly misleading, as it was in my example. If you'd prefer I'd substituted a different entity that had never been convicted of anything, how about the I.M.F.? Many people have a problem with that organization, and it would be wrong to write a bio about someone who ran it for many years, and never mention the I.M.F., at least imo. -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 15:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I said you seemed to be trying to imply guilt by association because you mentioned an organisation that apparently defrauded people and compared it to DLM/EV, saying that the author might have been trying to "avoid stigma." There is no stigma if there is no wrongdoing. I think we agree that DLM/EV are extensively covered, just never mentioned by their given names. Not "wrong", just sloppy. Bad sub-editing, I would say, but not culpable. Rumiton (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not a minor issue. The chief criteria for a reliable, 3rd-party source is that it have a responsible editing process. Even the best sources can still have typos. But the omission of the DLM/EV and of the "GMJ" name go beyond just overlooking something. That requires an active decision to omit the information, and then a decision to omit a discussion of that omission. To the extent that MightRiver had any editing process they didn't notice it or they agreed to or even required it. And since Cagan considers herself an editor as well, she may have handled that job herself aside from the proofreader. As for analogies, closer ones would be to a biography of Michael Jackson failing to name the Jackson 5, or to a biography of Shirley Temple omitting the name of the studio where she worked as a child (her 5 hit movies in 1934 are credited with keeping 20th Century Fox out of bankruptcy in the Great Depression). ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That IS a minor issue. And you are ignoring the arguments put up above and continuing to restate your own case. Please stop doing that if you are at all sincere about reaching a real consensus. Rumiton (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"Organization" citations
Let's use this section to investigate the references that Jayen found to "organizations". Copied from above:
 * p.61-63: Rawat's father setting up the first Indian org, his troubles with it, plus Rawat's troubles with his family over the Indian org later on
 * p.82-85: minor mentions of the Indian org in relation to the succession
 * p.99 Rawat being out of the loop in the Indian org, due to his youth
 * p.137 mentions that Glen Whitaker later ran the UK org
 * p.162 mentions Mishler later becoming main US organizer
 * p.179 Ole Grünbaum becoming main organizer in Scandinavia
 * p.182 Rawat and "the organization" being accused and then cleared of smuggling charges in India
 * p.185 conflicts between Rawat and his family, and between Rawat and the U.S. organization led by Mishler over the direction to take; "More and more, Maharaji was not the only one setting the direction of his work ... The organization's efforts to finance and support the work were taking on a life of their own, and internal tensions ... started manifesting"
 * p.190-191 internal politics in the org, Rawat schedules meeting which doesn't take place because of his illness, feels strangled by the org
 * p.193 US org in dire financial straits after Millennium
 * p.198-199 US org tells Rawat that as an Indian minor unfamiliar with the West, he needn't come to the office, they will manage everything; org then says it was a mistake and change their mind
 * p.205 Mataji and BBJ secure properties of Indian org
 * p.210 Chilean org accused of being communist after Pinochet takeover
 * p.213-214 US org wants Rawat to be just a figurehead (1976), breakdown of relationship with Mishler who becomes hostile
 * p.216 Rawat wants US org to leave him free to do his thing
 * p.218-219 org works on developing resources to hold events and publish materials, org audited (1977) and found to be in order, as in other inquiries prompted by detractors over the years
 * p.220-221 US org charters and leases planes, various troubles with planes lead to decision to buy own plane
 * p.251 Rawat falls out with Dettmers, who suggested he charge for knowledge; Dettmers goes on to make defamatory statements
 * p.282 UK charity commission inquiry, UK org cleared, Macgregor, Australian org cleared
 * p.320 "Rawat has developed an infrastructure so that anyone, anywhere can enjoy the message and if they so wish, prepare to learn the techniques of Knowledge."
 * Page 281 also has a paragraph on the Daily Californian articles we discussed a while back. "The paper's editor later acknowledged the error" slightly overstates the case; the paper merely put out a correction that they had erroneously described Rawat as the "head of Elan Vital Inc.", while Cagan creates the impression that the paper's apology was rather more substantial.

The first entry is on pp.61-63. As with many other parts of the book, this material has no apparent source. Most of it is not discussed in any other source I'm aware of, except the old copies of DLM publications hoseted on another site. Those that I've read make no mention of any of the tensions discussed in PIP. One aspect that is mentioned in reliable sources is the fight between family members over control of the Indian branch. That conflict is covered further on later pages. However the description here concerns me. It says on p.63: There are several problems here. 1) First is the name: Does any other source refer to the subject's father as "Shri Maharaji"? That appears to be an invention of Cagan, though she quotes "Sant Ji" using that name. 2) Second, it isn't clear which organization is being referred to since it is unnamed. We may guess it's the DLM, but that's just our own conjecture so while we can discuss it on talk pages we can't make that assertion in articles. 3) Third, it's my understanding from other sources that it was Prem Rawat who initiated the legal actions and that his brother countersued in response. This passage gives the opposite impression, making it appear that the family started the legal action. 4) Fourth, what "work" is being referred to? We've already established that Prem Rawat had little or no organizational control over the DLM while he was a minor, so whose work are we is Cagan talking about - Prem Rawat's or his father's? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ironically, a little more than ten years after Shri Maharaji's first organizers sued him, the Indian branch of the organization turned against his son. As with his father, the son would be taken to court, but this time, the organizers weren't the only ones trying to sue him--his own family members wanted total control over organizational decisions and assets as they attempted to assert their authority over his work.


 * See my earlier post 12:57, 13 July 2008 above. From that at least, it seems to be correct that BBJ sued and Maharaji countersued; witness the Maharaji quote given by the LA Times. "Shri Maharaji" seems fine to me, Indian usage is flowery and flexible.


 * Note that "-ji" is just a term of endearment that can be attached to any name; grammatically, it functions much like "mate" in Australian (and some British) English: "Dave mate, will you pass us the hammer?" It is certainly funny when even religious scholars like Bromley in Strange Gods seem to think that "Ji" is some sort of surname, referring to Maharaji as "Ji". ("Ji's movement had a fairly simple structure ..., p. 44). It's like saying, "Mate is a good plumber", because someone has called Dave "Dave mate, ...". If you talk to Indians in online forums, and they get to like you, they will quite readily append -ji to your name when they address you. ("Will-ji, you are completely right.") ;-) See -ji. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 10:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rawat has frequently used "Shri Maharaji" as an endearing, affectionate term when referring to his father. He also referred to his father as "Guru Maharaj Ji," but, when telling anecdotes about the father he used the more endearing one.  It's odd that Cagan used the term in the book describing the litigation, because unless that's explained, a casual reader won't know that.  Just more sloppiness on Cagan's part, imo.  Sylviecyn (talk) 11:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that. The book is written in an intimate style, so why should she not use Rawat's familiar term. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 11:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's an intimate term and certainly Cagan made that editorial choice, but unless Cagan provides a glossary to explain terms and/or Cast of Characters explaining the various names, the casual reader cannot know for sure who she's referring to: Prem Rawat, his brothers, or his father. Premies will certainly understand that the reference to "Shri Maharaji," means "Shri Hans," which leads me to think that the book was written for premies, by premies, for use in Rawat's promotion only, not for wider use. It's supposed to be non-fiction, with sources, references, citations, etc., not to leave the reader confused, which is actually the case here, because Will didn't know and had to bring the question.  Sylviecyn (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As you read through the book and come to that para in context, it's clear enough for the reader who is meant. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 12:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Further to that discussion, I have just noticed that on page 3 (!), Cagan says, "When Prem was born, his family consisted of his father, Shri Hans Ji Maharaj (Shri Maharaji); his mother; his stepmother; and his three older brothers: Sat Pal (Bal Bhagwan Ji), born in 1951; Mahi Pal (Bhole Ji), born in 1953; and Dharam Pal (Raja Ji), born in 1955." If we are assessing the book's reliability, we should first make sure that we have actually read it in its entirety, and give page refs for any demonstrable reliability issues. I'll devote a few evenings' bedtime reading to that, and suggest other editors do the same. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 13:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the background. I'd never seen "Shri Maharaji" in print, but if editors here have heard the subject use that name in speeches by the subject that's good enough for me. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "The work" refers to Rawat's spiritual work – bringing people "Knowledge". That's okay too. What worried me more was that Cagan's book is unashamedly based on personal recollections, without apparent crosschecking. That adds great colour and flavour in places, but hampers reliability. The paragraph on p. 281 about the Daily Californian articles is a good example. We discussed these at length a few months ago; if you read them, and then read Cagan's summary of the affair, the impression you get from Cagan leads you to expect to find something else in the DC's correction than what the Daily Californian actually said. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 11:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that misrepresentations like that are worrisome. As the book is examined carefully more and more of these worrisome issues show up. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding point 1: "Shri Maharaji" as a name for Prem Rawat's father, do we have any other source which uses that name for him? Like other details, it's a writer's choice if they want to make up names for the people in their books. But to put quote marks around it, implying that it is actually what someone said four decades ago, is a fresh interpretation of history (to put it nicely). While I agree with what you about hte use of "-ji", it's still a novel spelling or usage. Regarding point 3: I believe there are sources that give a different chain of events. I'll check, but my recollection is that "BBJ" was supposedly spread photos and stories about his brother, then Prem sued him for libel and BBJ countersued. Let me see if I can find the references I'm thinking of. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * While we're on the topic of names, Cagan writes on page 86 that after the death of Prem Rawat's father and after the tilak was applied to his forehead,  "never again would the students call him Sant Ji. For them, he was now Guru Maharaji." Is this true? He was never called "Sant Ji" by students after 1966 and he was called "Guru Maharaji" instead? I've seen hundreds of sources and I'm not aware of any before the 1980s that call him "Guru Maharaji", and few after that since he dropped "guru" at roughly the same time as he changed the spelling. It gives the strong impression that she's reluctant to use the name by which he was best known, "Guru Maharaj Ji", and to also bury the "Sant Ji" name, which we can see he still used occasionally in later years.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * All his names – Sant Ji, Balyogeshwar, Guru Maharaji, Maharaji, Prem Rawat – are listed in the Prologue (p. xx). There's a couple of occurrences of "Guru Maharaji" later on in the book as well. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 13:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any before the 1980s that call him "Guru Maharaji" Many, many papers in the 70s referred to "Guru Maharaj Ji". Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 13:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Guru Maharaj Ji", the name and spelling by which the subject achieved his greatest prominence, is not listed in the prologue. "Guru Maharaj Ji" and "Guru Maharaji" are not the same thing, obviously. Does Cagan ever use the subject's most famous name? Also, Cagan asserts that students never called him "Sant Ji" again after 1966. Yet we know he signed his name as "Sant Ji" as late as 1974. Early newspaper accounts, when all that reporters knew about the subject was what they were told by followers, use names like "Balyogeshwar Sri Sant Ji Maharaj", or "Balyogeshwar Param Hans Satgurudev Shri Sant Ji Maharaj". It seems like a sweeping statement to say the name was never used again by students. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we are tilting at windmills here. Indian names and their English spellings are very fluid things, the same way Arab names are. Perhaps that might sincerely seem strange to some people, but let's concentrate on serious issues. Rumiton (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks mates. Or Jis, as the case may be. Rumiton (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's fine too. There is no "right" way of transliterating the -ji syllable. Indian papers, in fact, usually add it directly to the name. In Mahatma Gandhi's case, for example, "Gandhiji" is far more common than "Gandhi Ji". So Cagan's way of writing it actually conforms to standard Indian-English usage. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 16:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If she weren't writing about someone who'd already achieved prominence in English-speaking countries under one name it'd be fine to come up with a fresh transliteration. But to ignore the most common name in favor of a spelling that was rarely, if ever, used, is bad history. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cagan doesn't use the names of the DLM or the EV, and she doesn't use the best-known version of the subject's name. It's as if her subject is going incognito, wearing sunglasses or a disguise so he won't be recognized. That's a very strange way to write a biography. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, we are trying to discredit Cagan again. You are confusing the Wikipedia version of notability (mention in the press and by scholars, however ancient) with the normal person's idea of what it means (the most recent and well-known version.) You can't expect a biographer to conform to Wikipedia values. Rumiton (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We're evaluating Cagan's reliability. Her refusal to use the most common names of her subect and his organizations is problematic. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no confusion at all, quite the contrary. And if a person is still alive, nothing is ancient history.  You know that.  What these editors are trying to do is untangle the confusion and obfuscation that Cagan created in her poorly-written book that has no citations, sources, end-notes, glossary, or a cast of characters.  I applaud these editors for doing this and so should you.  The issue isn't about "conforming to Wikipedia values;" the issue is if Cagan's book is a reliable source by Wikipedia values/standards so it can be used in a Wikpedia BLP, which has very strict standards for application of sources as you know.  PIP clearly is not because it's supposed to be a biography, a non-fiction, not a jumbled bunch of revisionism and confusing anecdotes about a subject's life events.  Btw, I was always told by Indian premies that the use of "Ji" is the same thing as using "Mr." in Hindi/India.  It's a polite term, not a term of endearment, but a proper term of respect to be attached to an Indian/Hindu person's name when addressing them.  Also, the moniker "Maharaji" is commonly used in India and in the western world.  It's not unique to Prem Rawat.  Please stop assuming bad faith, Rumiton.  People here are trying to make sense of that book, no thanks to the author and her sources who made a muddled mess of the thing.  These editors are doing the right thing, writing on a BLP, my hope is you'd agree.  Sylviecyn (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sylviecyn, -ji is a mark of respect, but I believe it is a bit warmer than Sri/Shree (Mr.). See e.g. (written by an Indian),, , . However, I'll readily confess that I don't speak Hindi. Cheers,  Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 21:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see the point Will is making about the sunglasses. On the other hand, if I extend AGF to Cagan, the following could be said to speak in her favour:
 * She mentions the name "Guru Maharaji" multiple times (once quoting a radio broadcast, p.164), which is but a variant spelling of Guru Maharaj Ji, and gives all his various names in a prominent place in the prologue (the word premie is also mentioned early on).
 * She uses Maharaji – a name the subject has been known by for about thirty years now – very often throughout the book; she could have stuck to "Prem Rawat" if she had wanted to be deliberately obfuscatory.
 * All the facts that made Rawat notable and that people would remember about him – his arrival in the West as a young teenage guru, the Millennium event, the marriage and resulting family rift – are covered.
 * The book includes many photos from Rawat's teenage years, again enabling identification. Granted, she did not include photos of Rawat in his Krishna costume, but then again, I would not necessarily want to show all the fashion statements I was happy to use in the seventies. ;-)
 * The names "Prem Rawat" and "Maharaji" are as easy to find on rickross.com etc. as Divine Light Mission or Elan Vital. As a matter of fact, Rick Ross has him as "Guru Maharaji" (so spelt).
 * Someone who doesn't remember "the teenage guru from the seventies" probably won't remember the name "Divine Light Mission", either (nor Elan Vital, for that matter).
 * So I am not sure that she is being deliberately obfuscatory; at any rate, it would not appear to be very effective if she had tried to be. Cagan may simply be writing from a present-day perspective, where the Guru Maharaj Ji era is a story that lasted less than ten years and is now more than a quarter of a century ago. Sure, the subject got more press in those first ten years than in the following thirty years put together, but given that she set out to write his life history and asserts his present-day notability as a keynote speaker, orator on peace invited to speak in universities on all continents and so on, she does not have to be bound by that. Even if she is being obfuscatory, one could also see this in a more charitable way, as enabling people to look at Rawat and his message without pigeonholing him on page 3 and putting the book away at page 4, or refusing to have her subject defined by those high-coverage years in the seventies.
 * By the way, the reference to the book being a "full and complete story" of Rawat's life is only present on the back cover blurb, which presumably was not written by Cagan. She herself says in her foreword that she realised early on that she would not be able to "tell his story in its entirety", but instead "fashioned this book to paint a picture of an extraordinary man". There's no false pretenses on her part; it is what she says it is. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 19:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've checked through my electronic resources and the only time anyone uses that spelling is in combination with "Ji", as in "Guru Maharaji Ji". For her to say that after 1966 his students called him "Guru Maharaji" is just plain wrong. See, for example, the book, Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?. The change in spelling in the 1980s was intentional and thorough, so the "organizations" and the subject apparently take the matter seriously. By analogy, if I understand correctly, folks didn't refer to "Osho" by that name earlier in his life. So it'd be incorrect for a biographer to quote people addressing him as "Osho" if that wasn't the name they used at the time. As for the statement on the back cover, the book is marketed as a "full and complete" biography. Presumably if the author didn't write that then the publisher did. Is it full and complete? I think we're finding that it isn't. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In terms of what they called him, it's correct, insofar as there isn't a difference in pronunciation between "Maharaji" and "Maharaj Ji"; they are just two different ways of spelling the same sound in Roman letters. Sure Cagan's bio doesn't cover all angles, but the same applies to the other materials we use as well, and Cagan does cover some things the others don't (family stuff and the like). (You're correct with Osho, the name was only used from '89 onward.) Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 22:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It'd be more correct to say that his students called him "Goomerajee" or "Goom Rodgie" than to say they called him "Guru Maharaji". Regarding the family stuff, that seems the most biased and therefore least reliable. The only times that Mata Ji or BBJ are mentioned is to blame them for something or point out their flaws. If we're going to treat this as a self-published work we should restrict any use to just the thoughts, feelings, or actions of Prem Rawat because I don't think we can trust its reporting on family matters. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did not mean that family stuff. I just meant things related to his immediate family, i.e. his children. Otherwise, I think we are in agreement. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure we are not talking at cross-purposes: I am not arguing that Cagan is a 100% reliable source. Some of the rosy "spin" she puts on things (probably by dint of quoting interviewed premies) in my mind puts the factual reliability of some passages in doubt, or makes their portrayal somewhat "self-serving" in the sense of WP:SPS. I would affirm the need for cross-checking with other sources whenever something is contentious, or potentially self-serving in that sense; and notability of anything she mentions (like awards etc.) should be attested to by independent sources. I think Cagan is a WP:RS on things such as the birthdays and names of his kids, if we wanted to include those, but even those can and should be cross-checked with the papers that reported his kids being born at the time. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 22:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree in theory, but in practice it hasn't worked out to limit the use of the book to non-contentious assertions because there has been disagreement over what counts as contentious. Names of kids are one thing, but this book has been offered as a source for far less neutral assertions. I don't think it can be used for anything but the simplest, statements. In almost every case if it is the only source it's insufficient, and if there are corroborating sources it's unnecessary. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a corroborating source is a must. Without that it is not notable. Where Cagan and an WP:RS disagree, we can look for further sources to see if any back her up. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can tell us what we should do when Cagan claims the first child was born in 1975 whereas a "reliable" newspaper has Rawat with 2 children in 1974? Momento (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We use the best sources we can find. His first two children were reportein the press, but I don't recall seeing any mentions of the younger two, probably because he had assumed a lower profile by then. What source has the children in 1974? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Malibu Guru Maintains Following Despite Rising Mistrust of Cults article, LA Times (12 Jan. 1979). (Also see my post dd. 22:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC) above.) Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 00:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Certainly the longer any source is the more errors are likely to be in it. Melton's Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults misspells Mishler's name. Having one or two small errors doesn't invalidate a source but having more begins to do so. On topics like the older children we have many sources and we use what WP:V considers the most reliable: scholarly sources and mainstream media. If it was a situation in which we had only two conflicting sources about a fact, Cagan and a mainstream newspaper, there'd be no comparison between which is considered more reliable by Wikipedia standards. Verifiable doesn't mean true. This encyclopedia is just about what's verifiable. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly, so it doesn't matter whether what Cagan wrote is true as long as we can verify that she wrote it.Momento (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, in this case, if we'd started out with just Cagan and that wrong article, looking for other newspaper articles would have yielded a greater number of articles that have the right info. So we get WP:V and truth, which is a bonus. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 01:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And in the absence of any articles, wrong or otherwise, as long as we can verify Cagan says it, we can use it.Momento (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree strongly. We've found too many problems with the material where we have independent sources to trust the material for which we don't. As one of the original RfC respondnets noted, if might be given a benefit of the doubt if there were no errors, but now we've found significant errors and omissions. Neither its publisher nor its author have reputations for writing complete, reliable biographies. It just doesn't meet WP:V.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You've already said that verifiability is the determining factor not truth. So errors and omissions don't come into it. Look how hard you fought for James Randi. The only reason to question something from PIP is if it is contradicted by another source. And even then, both opinions can be attributed.Momento (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Randi is a noteworthy individual whose comments we were using as a significant point of view, which NPOV requires we include. Cagan is being used, not for her opinions, but for facts. The two istuations aren't comparable. As far as errors and omissions, their presence menas that sources aren't reliable. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, please follow BLP guidelines: Material about living persons available solely in  questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link. -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 07:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rest assured there's nothing questionable about PIP. And the only living people apart from Rawat and Satpal to get mentioned will be Macgregor and for him we have impeccable sources.Momento (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read the preceding discussion about Cagan before making time-wasting statements like this one. Please familiarize yourself with WP:BLP if you do not understand the problem with PIP as stated above. Rest assured, there are quite a few questions about PIP, it should probably not be used at all. -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 14:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Maelefique, please take care with your edit summaries, such as this one are not exactly what I would class as civil. There's no doubt that the use of the Peace is Possible book is disputed, but there is no reason to resort to edit summaries like that one. Civility, please. And that goes for all of you, I do read individual diffs, so please do not think that I miss the hidden comments in edit summaries. I don't. Steve Crossin   (contact)  14:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to hide it Steve (unlike some editors who remove parts of discussions from their talk pages to make their arguments look better), many people have believed in a flat earth until ridiculously recently, despite massive evidence to the contrary. See any parallels to that concept here? (Granted, it wasn't my *most* civil summary, but it was directly on point, still looking for WP:Don't waste everyone's time too) -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 15:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please avoid that sort of thing though . If I may ask you: rather attempt to lower tension than encourage it. This is in Steve's userspace you're working here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

1972 customs incident - Garson

 * Moving forward, let's look at pages 180-182 which cover the 1972 customs incident. There are numerous press and other reports that cover this topic. While reports vary, the estimate of the dollar value of the material ranged from US$27,000 to $80,000 (in 2007 dollars that would be $136,812 to $405,371 ). Cagan refers to "some cash and wristwatches" without giving any estimate of the amount. From what we know of DLM members, it's unlikely that any of them were wearing diamond-encrusted Rolexes, so presumably the bulk of that valuation was in cash. She makes light of the concern that the DLM could have been used as a conduit for money laundering by the CIA, despite the intense activity of the CIA in the early 1970s in south Asia. However she entirely ignores the investigation into the DLM's and Rawat's international finances, preferring instead to devote time to complaining about what appears to be an accurate account on another matter by a Washington Post reporter. Her assertion that the wristwatches belonged to followers contradicts DLM statements reported contemporaneously that the wristwatches were gifts for Rawat, his family, and mahatmas. In conclusion, she says nothing useful about the incident that we could use.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Cagan does mention that he and his organization were eventually cleared. Did all RS sources that reported the commencement of the investigation report on the outcome, or did at least some feel that the fact that he was accused was more newsworthy than the fact that he was cleared? Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 00:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Coincidentally, I was just reading an email discussion between Wikimedia honchos concerning the general problem of BLP subjects where an indictment or arrest have been reported, but no news source has ever bothered to report the release/exoneration/not guilty verdict/pardon. News sources aren't biographies, though they may include biographical information. Likewise, while scholarly papers are reliable, they aren't necesarily biographies either, even though they may include short biographical summaries. to the best of my knowlede there are only three sources we have that purport to be biographies: Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?, Current Biography Yearbook 1974, and Cagan. The first of those doesn't cover the incident at all. Here's what Current Biography Yearbook 1974 says:
 * Within a year Guru Maharaj Ji's following had grown so enormously that after his 1972 tour eleven jumbo jets were required to carry a small fraction of the Western devotees back to India with him to celebrate the annual three-day festival in honor of his late father. A hostile Indian religious group asked the government to arrest Guru Maharaj Ji at the airport in New Delhi and force him to submit to a medical examination to determine his true age, which, the group asserted, was twenty-two. The request was denied, but an embarrassing incident occurred nonetheless: customs officials found $80,000 in jewels, watches, and money in the briefcase of Joan Apter, who was then serving as the Guru's secretary. Spokesmen for the Guru explained that the money was to pay the expenses of Western devotees during their stay in India and that the watches and jewelry were gifts for the Guru's mother, brothers, and mahatmas. Smuggling charges were never filed, but the Indian government was at last report still looking into the Guru's taxes.
 * Here's what Cagan says:
 * Some of his students in the United States and Britain organized five chartered jets to take a record number of Western students there in late 1972. By the time they all arrived in India, however an innocent customs incident involving two people, some cash, and wristwatches soured the press toward Maharaji. They started writing articles that accused him of being involved in smuggling jewels and cash. Not that they needed any more ammunition, since they were already accusing him of lying about his age and of being a CIA agent. Needless to say, these frivolous assertions were never substantiated, but that never stopped detractors from repeating the stories.
 * [Two paragraph complaint about press coverage]
 * When the word got out about the difficulty at customs, a reporter for the British Daily Mail announced inaccurately that Maharaji had to face questioning for allegedly smuggling a brief¬case containing jewels into the country. Maharaji was called to Delhi repeatedly to attend meetings with lawyers about the incident or to be grilled by the police, questioning his motives. At one meeting, his passport was temporarily taken from him, and he was not sure how long he would have to remain in India. So in the beginning of 1973, the fifteen-year-old was facing yet another challenging time in his life, having to stay in India in order to deal with the false allegations, when all he wanted was to return to his work and his friends in the West.
 * Maharaji's students explained that the briefcase in question merely held a pool of petty cash for the journey and safeguarded some personal jewelry. Maharaji and the organization would eventually be cleared on all counts.
 * If Cagan were our only source I don't think we could assert that the charges weren't filed. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * <off-topic> Just out of interest, did this e-mail exchange come to any useful conclusions about how to deal with this issue? Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's Argosy's Aug. 1974 inset box on the topic: ";THE GURU'S GAME In September of 1972, I was assigned to cover Maharaj Ji's return to Mother India. The Divine Light people had rented 18 jet planes to ferry some 3,500 Premies to India to be on hand for the Guru's touch-down-a kind of modern replay of the old Ark trick. Maharaj Ji's return was to signal the beginning of a five-day celebration at the Ram Lila grounds, a dusty No-Man's Land that separates "Old" Delhi from "New" Delhi.

The flight was long and uneventful--except for one thing. DLM officers came marching down the aisles collecting all the money and valuables the Premies were carrying. Reasons were given. "It's the Perfect Master's will, man," was the one I heard most often. Nonetheless, a number of noses began sniffing the air. Their faith was getting a test from their common sense.

The Guru's faithful ran into problems as soon as the plane had landed in New Delhi. Joan Apter-a super Premie and one of the five original U.S. converts-had her suitcase opened by Customs inspectors. It contained $28,000 in cash, travelers checks and jewelry. When the officials had finished with the rest of the bags, the figure stood at $65,000. Indira Gandhi's government had a stroke. Bringing that kind of wealth into the country-undeclared-was deemed to be smuggling, and a minor international incident was under way. The Customs people confiscated everything in sight, including Maharaj Ji's passport.

Indira Gandhi flew to New Delhi to hold a special session with her ministers to decide whether or not to clap the Perfect Master in jail. The Holy Family, holding a special session of their own, decided that they had had all they wanted of New Delhi. They loaded all the faithful aboard buses and trucked them the 100 miles to Hardwar.

Final destination turned out to be a group of white-stucco buildings, ringed with barbed-wire-topped fence. It was owned by Maharaj Ji and the Holy Family. But by now the first-aid tents were jammed with people who were suffering from high fevers and a racking dysentery. Forced to eat food that was produced on land fertilized with fresh water-buffalo manure, they fell like flies in a Raid commercial. And, since they had no money to buy food, they were helpless to change their diets. A minimovement began to get some money back so that the sicker people could be moved back to New Delhi for proper medical attention (the Premie doctor's idea of treatment was to tell them they needed "More faith, brother, more faith"). It was at about that time that the DLM officers made an announcement. "According to Divine will, all money and valuables left for safe keeping with DLM personnel, will be donated to the Divine Treasury." At that point, a lot of people saw the "knowledge." To this day, the Indian government is still holding on to the suitcases, and the Guru must post a substantial bond any time he decides to leave the country. -EB" Among other things apparent from this eye-witness account, the point of the money/valuables being collected during flight sheds another light than Cagan's "...involving two people..." imho --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Issues like this make one wonder just what kind of research Cagan did. When compared to objective sources, this "full and complete" biography doesn't come off so well. Fortunately this topic is well-covered in other sources. The problem comes where Cagan is the only source available for something. Based on what we know so far, I think that would be a problem.   ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Where Cagan appears to be the only source for something, I believe we should (1) look whether there aren't perhaps other sources after all that back her up (2) failing that consider inserting her version of events, with attribution. Given the level of innuendo and stark ad-hominem hostility of many press sources such as the Daily Mail, I believe this is not asking too much in order to discharge our responsibility to NPOV. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 13:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Without some bright line rule of when to use Cagan we're going to spend the next ten years arguing over when and how to use the book. If we're trying to balance purported media bias then using Cagan only when there are no media sources is an odd way to do it. Perhaps doing the opposite would be more appropriate - use Cagan only when there are other sources and then only to provide a contrasting view of events.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's actually what I meant. Where Cagan is the only one giving a view contradicting other sources, first check if there are other sources stating the same as she does, and if none do, consider putting Cagan's version as a contrasting view, with attribution. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Come on guys, your analysis is biased! I see some obvious reliability problems with the two sources that you have brought here: one claims there were "18 jets", the other claims there were "eleven jumbo jets". Cagan says it was "five jets". So who is right? Each source is impeached by the others. A jumbo jet takes about 420 to 520 passengers, depending on seat layout; assuming (!) the total of 3,500 premies given in Francis' source is correct, the group would not have needed eleven jumbo jets. On another note, the $28,000 in cash cited in Francis' source (less than $150,000 in today's money) should be seen in relation to the number of people that were being transported, accommodated and fed. Dividing this amount by 3,500, we see that we are talking about a little more than $40 per person (in today's money) to finance each premie's stay in India. I think $40 in today's money qualifies as "pool of petty cash", as indicated by Cagan. It's not for nothing that scholars recommend a triangulation approach, comparing self-published, neutral and hostile sources, to come to an understanding of the true circumstances of such events. And I'd be interested in hearing truthful accounts from any premies or ex-premies who were on those flights, and lived through those events, to see which of these sources comes closest to an WP:NPOV description of these events.
 * As for Cagan stating that Rawat was cleared, I believe we have an RS stating that the Indian government issued an apology to Rawat later on. That's a plus point for her reliability in my book.
 * And it's moving the goalposts to say that Cagan being incomplete disqualifies her as an RS, but the media being selective and scholars being incomplete are just the way things are and we have to accept it. We have to be neutral, or at least pretend to be. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 10:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cagan's book is sold as "The first full and complete story if Prem Rawat". We're judging the book on its own terms. Only two other sources purport to be biographies and we can judge them on the same terms. As for the differences between various types of sources, we don't expect journalists to have a deep understanding of spiritual concepts, and we don't expect religious scholars to spend time tracking down news. We do expect biographers to write complete and full accounts of their subjects' lives. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, that calculation of $40 per person being a reasonable petty cash pool implies that the money was somehow associated with individual members. None of the many accounts, even Cagan, ever say that the money found its way back to the members. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should it? According to your self-published source, premies were fed and accommodated (both in a rather basic way, admittedly) for four weeks and don't appear to have made any other payment towards that. You'd struggle to find a tent camp for $10 a week incl. bad food today, even in India. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not so interested in the matter of the money as of what research Cagan did in reporting on this. It appears that she relied on interviews and faulty or selective recollections rather than any real research such as we're doing. If the book had been sold as "sketches of Rawat's" or "recollections by admirers" than we wouldn't necessarily view it as a reliable source. It claims to be a full and complete life story, and it appears that that claim is yet another inaccuracy. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that claim is only made in the marketing blurb on the back cover. But yes, it appears she mainly interviewed premies. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 00:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:V, we evaluate books based on the publishers' reputations for reliability. The publishers, the people in charge of fact-checking, think this is a full and complete biography. It clearly isn't. That further impeaches the reliability of the publisher. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:V allows use of self-pubslished sources. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 00:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there's two problems with that strategy. There's no agreement that it's self-published, and if it is, by whom was it published? Cagan never even interviewd Rawat, so it's hard to say it was published by him. We have some convincing information that it was published by the foundation, and if we agree on that then we could use it as a source for the foundation article. But even self-published sources that have proven errors and omissions should be avoided. We should be using the best sources, not those that we have to struggle to find a way to allow.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you direct me to the WP policy or guideline that says a source that has omissions can't be mined for what information it contains? Cagan has spin, yes, but its facts at times strike me as more reliable than those given in other sources we use (which also suffer from omissions, based on opposite bias). As for it being an SPS, we shouldn't be arguing both sides against the middle. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 10:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The policies in question are WP:V and WP:BLP, which tell us not to use unreliable sources. They don't say that it's appropriate to go through an unreliable source and pick out parts that we think might be more reliable. As for being an SPS, by whom is it published? Who is the "self"? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of our work on these articles, I would define the "self" as Rawat and the organizations related to him, based on the fact that the book draws on transcripts of his talks, testimonies of people involved in his organizations, and the fact that the original US publishers are premies. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 18:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And by what logic do we say that a book published by MightyRiver is self published by Prem Rawat? What is the clear connection between them? Just because some followers self-publish a book doesn't mean that it comes under the SPS exemeption when writing about Rawat, a 3rd party. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a common-sense appraisal – it seems close enough for practical purposes and may be a workable compromise. Over the past few months (years), Cagan's book has been characterised as a self-published source by many editors here. John described it as such just the other day. Re-reading Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_29 –
 * Nik pointed out that Mr Mazo, the business partner of the Mighty River Press CEO, is a Board Member and Treasurer of The Prem Rawat Foundation.
 * Momento pointed out that "The press release announcing the publication of Peace is Possible is produced on of The Prem Rawat Foundation's web site".
 * Francis considered it an SPS, noting the difference between the two statements
 * "We normally don't allow self-published books to be used as sources for 3rd-parties" (WP:V paraphrased) and
 * "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons" (actual WP:V wording)
 * and concluded that "they can be used, not as "third-party sources", but still as "self-published sources" for those living persons, subject to WP:V".
 * Sylviecyn has argued at various times that the book has been endorsed by TPRF.
 * To be fair, I think you always argued against it being treated as an SPS – your reason being that Rawat didn't publish it himself, making it a "third-party source" about Rawat.
 * I argued against SPS status too – my reason being that self-published according to WP:SPS means published by the author, or at the author's expense, and it clearly wasn't published or paid for by Cagan herself. I stand by that.
 * Cagan is a very successful biographer. In terms of reliability, I would argue that her book is better than The Register, that it seems far better researched than Collier, and is at least as reliable as a source for facts as Rolling Stone magazine. I don't think it is a sufficient standalone source for exceptional claims in a BLP context. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 22:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Could we move this SPS discussion down to . That'd help keep things more compact and focused. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem with that. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 22:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As for "picking and choosing", we do that with all our sources. If a reliable source is directly and credibly contradicted by a host of other reliable sources – say, Melton calling Mishler Mishner – we assume our source is in error and do not cite that passage, while keeping our options open to cite other parts of the source that appear solid. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 18:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For example, if we wanted to mention the number of Boeings that the premies travelled to India on, I would cite Cagan, your SPS, and perhaps add a footnote that various other sources made it 8, 9, 11, or 18 Boeings. I think Cagan and even your unpublished SPS are more reliable for this particular detail than the other sources, by virtue of being based on first-hand, eye-witness testimony. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 18:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * When we have a reliable source that makes an obvious typo or an anomolous assertion we deal with that. I'm not aware of any circumstance in which we take an unreliable source and use parts because we think those parts may be reliable. It's the difference between picking a wilted leaf out of your salad versus digging through a trash can to find enough unspoiled food for dinner. Or to use another example, forums are not considered reliable sources. Does anyone think it's OK to quote the forum postings of Davis, Dettmer, or Donner, on the basis that they appear to be reliable reflections of the writers' comments? No, obviously not. Now there may be circumstances in which we say that a source is reliable in some parts but not in others, but we haven't found the reliable part of Cagan yet. She even changes quoted text, which means she's unreliable as a simple reporter of statements so even the interviews aren't trustworthy. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate what you're saying, I just don't take quite so dim a view of Cagan's reliability as you do. I think she uses spin (or passes it on from her interviewees), but the actual facts she reports seem fairly solid to me, plus she reports on some things that aren't prominent in other sources (like his being cleared of the smuggling charges, his being a keynote speaker at a Rotary Club meeting, his being invited to speak in universities in Oxford or Malaysia, the former Prime Minister of Italy and former President of the European Parliament being interested in him etc.). I haven't researched that stuff, and perhaps I'll change my mind later, but I don't at present think she made all of that up. At the very least, she could give us an idea on how to expand the scope of the article, and what to do further research on to make this a rounded bio. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 19:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Two thoughts: And, oh, a third thought. Maybe Steve does not so much ask us to keep indenting low for reading on his mobile, as for us to stop endless-repeat discussions after the 2nd step. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We need to get out of these cycles of original research on sources. OR is *not* OK, per policy, WP:NOR. Sometimes discussions like this one go astray because of "no, we're not doing OR on the subject of the Wikipedia article, but we don't mind driving the OR on the sources describing that subject ad infinitum". The principles are fairly simple: did anyone directly and unambiguously involved with the authoring & publication of the book (that are *two* parties, an author and a publisher, not the name of a fact-checker we plucked from an internet site, possibly involved via a fourth party, etc.) have a *reputation* for fact-checking? No, and that's it. Whether it's a SPS (literally) is irrelevant, while it would be a *questionable* source in any case if it's not an SPS, and the rules for how and when to use SPSs and "questionable" sources are exactly the same (check WP:V on that - the only difference regards how such sources are being found either the one or the other by Wikipedia's simplistic rules).
 * Notability: if no other source but Cagan mentions something, it lacks notability, and won't be included in Wikipedia. I have a late 20th century biography of over 500 pages on a UK painter. His Wikipedia article is a few paragraphs. Details only found in the published biography are not notable enough, even if it's written by a scholar (like the one I'm talking about here). That's how it works. We're a tertiary source, which summarizes other sources, not a PR platform for a living inspirational speaker.


 * Francis, I agree it is a questionable source in that it has a distinct promotional tinge. I proposed exactly what you suggest 6 days ago, to wit:
 * So can we now agree to do this? Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We're still reviewing Cagan. It's too soon to make such a determination. We keep finding new problems. There are a few more sections to go through before we get to the 1980s when 3rd-party sources dry up. Until we have all of the evidence we can't evaluate the book properly. And we're also still evaluating the question of who the publisher of the book is should we decide that it's self-published. Have patience - if we can settle this here it will save us countless hours or weeks of debate later. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me add that regarding it as a questionable source is a likely outcome, but we should make sure that our review is thorough enough that there is ample evidence to support that conclusion. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To Jayen, as I pointed out earlier, the smuggling incident, including the failure to file charges, is well-covered in the best biography we have, Current Biography Yearbook. As for the rest, even highly unreliable sources can inform editing decisions. There's value in reading forum postings, user pages, self-published sources, etc., in order to understand the background and to learn about topics we may not know of otherwise. I certainly don't object to using any source in that way. To Francis, I agree that we don't have space in this article for every complaint and compliment. Being invited to speak at a university may mean many things. It may mean being the graduation speaker with the entire faculty and student body in attendance and receiving an honorary doctorate, or it may mean that a few students got together, reserved a room, and printed some flyers. Both fall under the phrase "invited to speak at.." but we have to be careful that we don't imply more than we can verify. This gets back to the UN anniversary issue that I've read about in the talk page archives. And yes, I think it's the multiple indents that bother Steve. It's standard practice on WP talk pages, but we can bend a bit to accomodate Steve's 2.5" screen considering how generous he's being with his time. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

1972 customs incident - Garson (part 2)

 * And I note that Argosy (magazine), quoted above, is described as an "American pulp magazine". Please! Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 11:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not on the flight, I was back home in the ashram, but several of my friends were there. There were 5 aeroplanes, not 8 or 11. The story of the unwilling confiscation of money is a fabrication. The dialogue is made up, totally at odds with the jargon of the day. The story about buffalo manure is laughably inaccurate, though there were, as always in India, some cases of diarrhoea. These wildly wrong accounts should not be used in any way for this article. Rumiton (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The account in the Argosy is matched closely by the account in Jos Lammers' self-published memoir Abandoned Roads, available online. In particular, Chapters Seven, Eight, and Nine. It may be that Rumiton's friend's are the unreliable sources. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How so? I note that this self-published author says "I was in one of the five chartered Boeing-747’s", backing Cagan and none of the other presumably more reliable sources. There is no mention of being asked to hand over money in the plane, or have I missed that? Yes, apparently there was lots of diarrhoea, and I can well believe it. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's quite possible that different things were done on different planes. I was contrasting Lammer's recollections with those of Rumiton's friends, who apparently couldn't see shit (literally). ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * At any rate it seems there were 5 Boeings, not 8, 11 or 18, or any other number reported in more reliable sources. (Btw, using bovine dung as manure is not exactly a practice restricted to the Indian subcontinent. Some people should get out in the country more often.) Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 10:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you say 5? Do you have some independent knowledge of the correct figure? In matters like this, I expect it's very rare for reporters to make their own investigation. I'm fairly sure they were reporting what they were told by the DLM rather than calling up the charter companies in the U.S. and U.K. and asking for details of their customers. Based on how widely the DLM's statements about its following vary, adding and omitting a million followers from interview to interview, I think it's safe to say that the spokesmen didn't place a high priority on numerical accuracy or consistency. Further, we're talking about an international movement. Some writers may make statements that are correct regarding their country, but fail to include events going on in other countries. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just answered above. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 18:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I retract the answer I just gave above. This user page contains the passage, "It was a huge celebration. Five "jumbo jets" (Boeing 747s) were chartered just to carry visitors from the US, and several more for other countries." It seems your instinct was correct, after all. :-) (FWIW, Cagan says the five jets were chartered by his disciples in the US and UK.) -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 19:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's Stoner, Carroll; Parke, Jo Anne. All Gods Children: The Cult Experience - Salvation Or Slavery?. Radnor, Pa: Chilton, 1977, ISBN 0-8019-6620-5, p 103, which I think clarifies some Cagan issues too (e.g. secretary/stewardess; finances;...):";GURU MAHARAJ JI

Thousands of sunsets had faded behind the Rocky Mountains since a small band of acid dealers brought a pudgy thirteen-year-old Indian holy boy to a teepee on a mountainside in Boulder so he could teach them and their friends how to meditate and get high without drugs.

Since 1971 the young guru has grown into a less rotund but far richer young man. He's moved from the mountainside teepee, first to a large $86,000 house with a pool in Denver, and then to a half-million-dollar Malibu estate complete with pool, tennis court, and ocean view. He's owned Mercedes Benzes and Maseratis and has been stopped for speeding. He's had ulcers and has married and become a father. In his early twenties, he's in control of a multimillion-dollar-a-year religious business, the Divine Light Mission.

He had some trouble hanging onto his religious enterprise in 1975, after he married his tall, blonde, and older secretary, Marolyn Lois Johnson, a former United Airlines stewardess from California. Maharaj Ji's mother back in India didn't approve of the marriage, or the young man's gaudy lifestyle. At sixteen he was not old enough to marry without parental permission in Colorado, so he petitioned the court.

The judge agreed that the boy guru was old enough to marry, saying that he had an income and appeared mature beyond his years, a point confirmed by his most devout followers and disputed by others who tell of water pistol battles and legendary bouts of childish temper. The couple married in 1974 in a posh ceremony at a nondenominational Christian church outside Denver. They now live at the California estate with their two small children when they are not traveling on Mission business. The organization still maintains the Denver home as a place for Maharaj Ji to stay when he is in the city. But most of the time, premies live in the house. When their guru comes to Denver, they move out.

After his marriage, the young guru's mother, Rajeswari Devi (known as Mata Ji to premies) disowned her youngest son, saying she had made a mistake when she named him to succeed his father as head of the religious movement, and named the guru's older brother Bal Bhagwan Ji to direct the Mission. Maharaj Ji's reaction was to fight for his place as spiritual master of the Mission, and he went to India, where he and his brother became entangled in a series of legal suits and countersuits. Ultimately the two young men agreed, in a New Delhi court, to drop all charges. Now it appears that while Maharaj Ji is firmly in control of the Divine Light Mission in the United States, his mother and brother have taken the reins of the movement in India.

The Mission's tax-free annual income, revealed by Mission spokesman Joe Anctil as about $3.78 million in 1976, came from gifts, tithings, and annual business earnings. Robert Mischler, the Mission's executive director, has said the group considers itself a religion only for tax purposes. As a religion it is exempt from taxation. Under the Internal Revenue Service regulation no part of the net earnings of a religion may go to a private individual.

Anctil says that 60 percent of the Mission's $315,000 monthly income goes to support the international headquarters in Denver, the homes around the country where the guru and the 250 member staff live. The Mission makes the mortgage payments on both of Maharaj Ji's homes and spends about $200,000 annually from the Mission coffers to support the Mission's full-time premies, its guru, and its business activities.

Michael Garson, a former premie who worked in the Denver headquarters, has a different idea. In an affidavit presented in a British Columbia court he said, "My analysis of the accounts of the Divine Light Mission indicated that approximately 60 percent of the gross receipts are directed to maintain the lifestyle of the Maharaj Ji and those close to him."

In photostats of Mission financial records submitted with his testimony, Garson pointed out an entry of $139,925 marked "special projects." He said it was money "advanced directly to the Maharaj Ji for purposes related directly to his own maintenance."

It is no secret that the Mission has overspent in its brief history and has run up some monumental debts. The guru's millennium celebration at the Houston Astrodome in 1972 left the group sadly in arrears in making payments on debts it incurred at that time. Anctil says at one time the Mission owed more than $650,000 but had been able by late 1976, to reduce that debt to $80,000.

However, the Divine Light Mission is still feeling a financial squeeze. In selling real estate around the country the Mission has closed ashrams. With the closing of ashrams came a decline in income. Where premies move out of the ashrams they no longer turn over their weekly paychecks to the Mission. It must then rely on their voluntary contributions. In December 1976, Anctil said the monthly income from contributions had dropped from a high of more than $100,000 a month to $80,000.

In response to the declining income the Mission has had to consolidate its operations. In addition to the disposal of real estate in Denver and elsewhere the Mission has sold its printing business. The business was sold to a premie who, operates it in Denver and charges the Mission for printing work. The computer, which the Mission once used to keep track of its membership around the country, is gone. It was dropped when the costly lease expired.

With the printing business gone and some of the other Mission business activities shut down, premies who worked in those enterprises have had to reconsider their life's work. Many are being encouraged to go back into the world, get a job, and contribute to the Mission by tithing.

But the Mission doesn't show any signs of closing. As Joe Anctil says, "We are changing our image." It appears that the Divine Light Mission and its guru will be around as long as they can determine what the public wants and give it to them. And the guru has what looks like a long life ahead of him." --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Again, it is worth noting that the financial practices of Rawat's organization were investigated and found to be in order (as stated by Cagan, and uncontradicted by any reliable source as far as I am aware). Garson's accusations came to naught. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 13:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And re-investigated and re-cleared of wrongdoing many times since, though somehow that does not deter some from suggesting otherwise. Rumiton (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re. "Garson's accusations came to naught" – well, let's put it this way, you've been tricked again by Cagan's flowery language:"Michael Garson, 35, the guru's former financial analyst [...] testified as a witness in a case seeking to prevent U.S. Heiress Darby McNeal, 31, now a British Columbia resident, from signing over an estimated $400,000 inheritance to the Divine Light Mission. Each week about $35,000 in donations and income flow into the mission's Denver headquarters, said Garson, and "approximately 60% of the gross receipts are directed to maintain the life-style of the Maharaj Ji and those close to him. So far as I could see, the whole function of the organization was to provide an opulent existence for the Maharaj Ji."" Later that month: "A British Columbia Supreme Court order has blocked an American heiress from handing over much of her wealth to guru Maharaj Ji. [...] Darby McNeal, 31 [...] "The evidence before me is that this Maharaj Ji's way of living does not correspond to the ideals of a traditional Indian guru and that 60 per cent of the substantial receipts of the Divine Light Mission are directed to maintain Maharaj Ji and those close to him in grand style," the judge said." --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That was not an investigation of the organization's finances and its compliance with charity regulations. (I remember reading that there was such an investigation following Garson's allegations, in Colorado, which did not result in any finding of wrongdoing, but I can't find a ref now. Anyone?) So the judge believed Garson, and another witness stating that Rawat was not a proper Hindu teacher, and refused to allow McNeal to accede to Mishler's request to loan the DLM money. In doing so, the judge essentially robbed 31-year-old McNeal of her right to make independent financial decisions (and ordered that she undergo psychiatric evaluation). In a similar vein, courts in the seventies ruled that kidnapping and deprogramming adults was okay. They no longer do. (Just out of interest, does anyone know whether McNeal came to appreciate the judge's intervention in later years?) Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 00:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There was an investigation by state and local tax officials into the use of the DLM's tax-exemption for purchases of personal items. I haven't neen able to find the result. As for the McNeal matter, we're not here to discuss the injustices of the past. This thread is about the reliability of Cagan as a source. Like so many other issues, there's no mention of Garson or McNeal in Cagan, so at most it's another omission. The one thing that is perhaps most relevant here is that finding of the judge that 60% of the DLM's income went to supporting Rawat. That again belies Cagan's description of (what we presume to be) the DLM as an organization that manages his travel. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You can bet if the result had been negative, there'd be plenty of sources. ;-) Granted, Rawat and his entourage travelled in ostentatious style -- Rolls-Royces and private jets. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 10:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, the press is notorious for failing to follow up on stories unless there's some news. As for Garson, I think his greatest contribution may be his comment, "It does take a lot of money to keep a guru and he does live well, but what he teaches I will believe in for the rest of my life." That sums it up succinctly and perhaps applies to other spiritual leaders as well. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I’ve seen no references to any special investigation of the US DLM’s tax status. In 1975 the organisation was assessed by the IRS as part of the normal round of assessing the corporation – the only source on this does not seem to meet WP:V however editors might find it helpful as background reading - http://www.ex-premie.org/best/bof10302000222548.htm#P_0VBQ   the key paragraphs are:

"My [Michael Dettmers] other priority was to continue dealing with the [IRS] audit. To help me with that challenge, Maharaji instructed me to fly to London and meet with a premie named Aubrey West, (Aubrey passed away a few years ago) and to tell him about our problem. He was confident that Aubrey would be very helpful in dealing with the situation. His daughter had introduced Aubrey to knowledge and Maharaji came to know him because he was the principal architect of the strategy that successfully wrested control of DLM in the UK from Maharaji’s mother. Aubrey was one of the most brilliant and interesting people I have ever met. In 1976, he was probably in his late 50’s. He was educated in the law at Cambridge and had established a very exclusive and successful investment banking practice. He was also a published and world-renowned calligrapher. ''I met with Aubrey over the course of several days where he interrogated me over every detail of my findings when preparing for the audit. Eventually, he latched onto a single detail that I had never given much thought to. When I first came to Denver, the person who had been handling the finances handed over to me all of his files and records. Included in the transfer was a small endorsement stamp with the facsimile signature Prem Pal Singh Rawat aka Guru Maharaj Ji. It had been the standard practice at DLM to deposit all checks into a DLM bank account including all of the checks that had been made payable to Guru Maharaji. Those particular checks were recorded on a separate deposit slip and endorsed over to DLM with the endorsement stamp bearing Maharaji’s legal signature. Aubrey made that fact the cornerstone of his strategy to deal with our problem. In Aubrey’s opinion, there was a fundamental and legal difference between gifts of love made out of devotion to one’s guru, and donations made to an organization created to spread the guru’s message. He argued that those two different and distinct sources of funds should never have been co-mingled within DLM donations.'' ''Aubrey, through me, instructed Maharaji’s lawyer and accountant to re-classify all of the checks that had been made out to Maharaji, but deposited into DLM’s bank account, as Maharaji’s personal funds that were simply being held in trust for his personal use by DLM. When the financial records were re-categorized in this manner, the records clearly showed that Maharaji had more than enough funds to personally pay for the Malibu residence, the cars, and his personal expenses with his own money. During the audit, we acknowledged to the IRS that, after consulting with our lawyers, we realized that it was not a good idea to have had DLM act as a trustee in this manner, and that we were in the process of transferring all of the assets that were rightfully Maharaji’s into a separate structure that properly reflected his beneficial interest in them. The IRS was completely satisfied with this explanation, confirmed the principle that Maharaji and DLM were two distinct entities, and that gifts to Maharaji qualified as such under IRS codes. With that issue settled, we sailed through that audit without difficulty or incident."'' --Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Point 6
Way up above Will indicated 5 points which make Cagan unsuitable as a resource with a decent reliability for use in Wikipedia. I had a closer look at Cagan's text about the customs incident (Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 36):":I quite dislike Cagan's prose, which apparently is by its very style inaccurate. Take these three consecutive sentences:"[...] When the word got out about the difficulty at customs, a reporter for the British Daily Mail announced inaccurately that Maharaji had to face questioning for allegedly smuggling a brief-case containing jewels into the country. Maharaji was called to Delhi repeatedly to attend meetings with lawyers about the incident or to be grilled by the police, questioning his motives. At one meeting, his passport was temporarily taken from him, and he was not sure how long he would have to remain in India. [...]"It is obvious that she characterises the content of the claims included in the first of these sentences as "inaccurate" and attributes them to the British Daily Mail. But what about the next two sentences? Impossible to say whether she continues to relate what she perceives as inaccuracy (by the Daily Mail?), or whether somewhere she has switched to telling what she thinks really happened. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)" Thus I propose point six to be added to the 5 points listed above in :
 * 6. Weasely and confusing writing style, which makes unclear what Cagan is trying to tell (or to hide).

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem with the above sentences. If the Daily Mail wrote about "jewels" (they did, apparently, in "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), they were wrong. I read the other two sentences as separate factual accounts, not as part of the Daily Mail story. It would not have occurred to me to read them thus. Btw, the Daily Mail made it "eight jumbo jet airliners". I'll grant you that Cagan is tendentious, but not more so than the Daily Mail. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 11:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re. "...I read the other two sentences as..." – exactly, that was my point, they can be read in different ways.

Re. "not more [tendentious] than the [British] Daily Mail" – quite irrelevant, as we don't need the British Daily Mail (or any other tabloid afaik) as a source. If Daily Mail and Cagan have a comparable level of tendentiousness (as you seem to indicate), let's treat them likewise. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Not more tendentious" in fact is a polite and moderate way of saying "Way less tendentious." Which it is. Re the above questions, it is grammatically quite clear that after dealing with the inaccuracies in the first sentence, she is then going on to say what she believed was the truth. She is saying that the false news report was followed by other tribulations, i.e. being called to Delhi, grilled, etc. Rumiton (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Jayen wrote: If the Daily Mail wrote about "jewels" (they did, apparently, in "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), they were wrong. How so? Back when we wwere drafting the paragraph on this incident we found many sources that refered to jewelry, some even getting into specifics like a pearl necklace. Why would we say here that the Daily Mail is wrong? Are we discounting the reliability of that newspaper just because of its printing format? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * When I hear "jewels", I picture gemstones, rather than jewelry (or wristwatches). Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 00:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We have many sources that say gems or jewelry, as well as watches. One of the definitions of "jewel" is A costly ornament of precious metal or gems.  So the term refers to both gems and jewelry. Is there any other reason to think the Daily Mail has reported incorrectly?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:·
 * The Daily Mail seems to have referred, in various articles, to a suitcase or suitcases filled with jewels AND cash, wristwatches etc. – which would appear to be correct. Accepting that jewels can refer to items of jewelry, Cagan is indeed misrepresenting the Daily Mail coverage to score a gratuitous point. As for errors in the Daily Mail, there are some. The Daily Mail article I mentioned earlier refers to the money being used to feed and house "350 American converts-in-the-making, who had flown in with him in the chartered jumbo jet he called his silver steed" – we know the money was used to feed and house ten times as many (and there were five jumbo jets), and the festival attendants are usually described as (already converted) premies, not converts-in-the-making. Looks like a misquote, or an omission. Then, the Daily Mail refers to Rawat as "5ft. tall and a waddling 13st." – I believe most sources say he is 5'5. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 11:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, double-checking on Rawat's height, I came across this letter that Rennie Davis sent to John Brauns relatively recently, and which John then posted in one of the forums. It is quite an interesting letter, and, if I may make a suggestion, I think editors unfamiliar with it would profit from reading it, just to gain some more perspective on what this is all about. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 11:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * According to your point of view! This is causing me some upset, Jayen. Btw, if Rawat is over 5'2" or 5'3" then I'll eat my snow boots.  I'm 5'6" and I towered over him.  He's around 5'2" in sandals. Just about everybody towers over him.  He's quite short and petite (and there's nothing wrong with that and he shouldn't be criticized for his height).  Also, Jayen, please stop cherry-pickign and linking to isolated posts from the ex-premie forum.  The forums have been in existence since 1997, there are tens of thousands of them.  Linking them here is inappropriate and they  have no place here.  Furthermore, if I started doing that (and I will if you continue!) I'd probably be called before a Wikipedia tribunal, then drawn and quartered.  What Rennie Davis had to say once, on a private discussion forum, is irrelevant and clearly promotes your POV here.  You're way out of line mining a forum that is over ten years old for your POV.  But, if you insist on doing this, well, then, I'll more than happy to start linking many, many, many, many posts here from that forum and it's archives, about what Michael Dettmers, Michael Donners, and a host of other people, including former instructors, have had to say, who have held positions of power in Prem Rawat's inner circle.  That includes many confirmations on matters written about in MacGregor's "Blinded by the Light" article.  It's bad enough that Elan Vital has been monitoring that forum for years now and keeping dossiers on us.  Please...don't do this!  Sheesh!!!~ Sylviecyn (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (Reaching in my file for the extensive dossier on Sylvie, with the official EV, dark-green binding) ...ah...ohh...yes, I see...well, that is amazing...gosh, did she really say that? Hhmm. OK, just kidding ya along. But I think that letter was interesting for the insight into the mind of one of the most influencial mystique-makers of those days. We even got to hear about him in Australia. Thanks Jayen. Rumiton (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayen, I don't think the Daily Mail has it wrong. They're obviously referring to a single planeload of people. We don't "know" that the money was for feeding then times that many- we have one account that says it was simply collected on the plane from followers, seemingly as an offering to Rawat. Various stories about the purpose of the money and jewelry were floated. What's remarkable, and on topic here, is that apparently Cagan read this report and yet still got her account of it wrong. It clearly mentions that the investigation went beyond the mere smuggling charge. As for the height of Rawat when he was 15, I doubt we have any definitive source for that. His physician said he was 5'5", but the same physician also said he had an ulcer and Cagan now disputes that. Apparently Cagan was not interested in what mainstream newspapers wrote about her subject, except to lambaste their coverage. Since I doubt she cared enough or did the research to find those clippings and form an opinion of them, it's more likely that someone handed her the clipping and told her to view it as an example of absurd media statements. Or does anyone here really believe she travelled to London to research news clipping? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we are getting circular now. Posted at the beginning of this discussion, from page xi in Cagan: So, in preparation for this book, I decided to interview those who knew him well, and I met with everyone from his cook to his photographer, from his friends to his lifelong students. I taped conversations, I watched DVDs, and I read his talks that have been meticulously saved for posterity. Finally, after reviewing thousands of pages of interviews and media clippings, watching many of his taped addresses, and speaking to a multitude of people who knew him during different phases of his life, a picture began to emerge. You say, "maybe" the DM talked about a different plane and didn't mention the others – by the standards you apply to Cagan, that would be an "omission" invalidating anything the DM had ever published. "Maybe" Cagan read a different DM article that's not online and which referred to Rawat smuggling diamonds. Short of asking her, we don't know, and will never know. Sorry. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 18:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we don't know the full truth of the event, and we never will. The account of the Daily Mail, in which the money was on one plane, concurs with some other accounts. We have no basis for saying that their reporting is "wrong". Nor is the Daily Mail claiming to publish a full and complete life story. Yet their account is far more complete than Cagan's. Cagan is the issue here, not the Daily Mail. Rather than devoting the space to giving the full account, Cagan chooses to devote a paragraph to complaining about the press coverage but she never actually refutes any of the reporting. Nor does it appear, from her own statement that you've kindly quoted, that she did any independent research. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I fail to see in what sense "interviewing a multitude" of eye-witnesses and "reviewing thousands of pages of interviews and media clippings" equates to doing no independent research. It seems like a considerable research effort to me. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 22:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Two points: I don't think it was independendent research. My guess is that a file of clippings was handed to her, and a set of current followers was selected to visit her for interviews. It would not surprise me if the interviews were conducted over the phone or even via email. But I don't think that Cagan ever went to the library and sought out other viewpoints, nor do I think she made any effort to interview non-followers. There's certainly no evidence of either. And that brings me to the second point. If she was actaully exposed to an equal or greater range of research materials to what we've seen it is all the more mystifying how she ended up with a final product with so many omissions, inaccuracies, and biases. While it doesn't really matter why the book is that way, it makes it appear less accidental and more intentional. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cagan may or may not have undertaken a considerable research effort but 'relevance' is everything and there's the problem of 'rubbish in,rubbish out. This is well demonstrated by the question of the number of planes that were chartered - Who is it that would actually know how many? and indeed what was the mechanism of charter ? Who was the charteree and how was the finance raised ? What package was sold to the premies was it 'flight only' or were the sums paid supposed to cover food and travel in India ? After 35 years memory is a poor source and only those directly involved in the management of the project are likely to have had good information, unless of course DLM (Elan Vital) has kept paper records. In the absence of any documents, then the key people that Cagan needed to talk to about 1972 were Mishler and Hand, of course Mishler is no longer alive, but did Cagan seek out Hand ? Dettmers was not centre stage in 1972, but he is a key authorititive source for matters of internal finance and management of Rawat's movement from 1975 onwards, yet all Cagan has to say about him is a two line insult.


 * On the matter of the number of planes - this is not a simple number because although, it probably was the case that only 747s were used on the outward journeys from the US and UK, at least two 707s were used as substitutes on the return journeys. DLM outside of India was barely a year into existence and many of its management level operatives, were naieve, inexperienced and/or plain incompetant, while the Indian organisation was simply unprepared for the 'invasion of 3,000 stupid hippies. In the inevitable chaos any clarity of what was intended or actually happened was lost to most of the particpants rendering recollection particularly dubious. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend stopping the Daily Mail–Cagan comparison. We don't use Daily Mail on Rawat related topics. It wasn't proposed by anyone yet to be included in any of the bibliographies either. We don't treat Cagan's retort of the Daily Mail in main namespace either, nor did I see anyone proposing that yet (I'd think it foolish). The argument is moot. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right of course, Jayen, Cagan did a lot of research. For example, she reveals that the three leaders of the Australian anti-Rawat group have all been found guilty of illegal behavior by Australian courts for involvement with drugs, firearms, theft, contempt of court and perjury. Momento (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please remember WP:AGF. Impugning the motives of your fellow editors does not breed civility, and is likely to result in similar commetns about your own motives. Better just to avoid such comments and stick to discussing the topic at hand. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I object to the repetition of the terms "anti-Rawat group," "hate-group," calling private people criminals by using guilt by association. This has got to stop and now.  This goes beyond not assuming good faith, these are personal attacks.  Where do I report this?  To the Arbcom?  I forgot the process for reporting these things.  Enough is enough.  Thanks.  Sylviecyn (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, not to the Arbitration Committee, to me. This page, as it's in my userspace, is outside the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee, as far as I'm aware. It's my userspace, so it's my jurisdiction. Personal attacks and incivility must stop now. If necessary, blocks will be issued in future, if repeated incivility occurs. <font face="Monotype Corsiva" color="blue">Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 19:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The terms "pro Rawat" and "anti Rawat" have been used frequently by many authors. I am not "impugning the motives of my fellow editors", I deliberately used "people" as opposed to "editors" to avoid that inference. Nor did I refer to any "private people" or "ex-premies" or "ex-premie.org" but simply reported what Cagan and EV say. But in the interest of harmony I have removed that portion of my comment that offended.Momento (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Momento, there is no such thing as the 'Australian anti-Rawat group', let alone 'leaders' of this ficticious group, yet you have left your reference to such a group in your post. Why is that?  Do you think I am a 'leader of the Latvian anti-Rawat group'?   Is Will a leader of the 'Wikipedia anti-Rawat group'?  Can you not see how offensive and POV your posts are?  --John Brauns (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Literary quality
Some of the criticisms re. Cagan's PIP have been quite ruthless here. Well, if Andrea Cagan may chance upon this page, I want to add something else: the criticisms here, even my point about the writing style have to be seen in the light of Wikipedia's tools for assessing the reliability of the source within Wikipedia's premises, that is: the suitability of using the source as a reference for Wikipedia article content.

I do contend Cagan's book has a literary quality. Cagan's Author's Note p. xi starts thus:"In 1971, I was living in a rustic cabin..." "...rustic cabin..." what a fantastic choice of words! It recalls the French Enlightenment philospher's Primitive hut (French: cabane rustique), with the whole complex of Noble savage/idiot savant ideas behind it. In fact Cagan gives it all away from the outset, as if she's saying: I know virtually nothing about the topic of this book, I chanced to stumble in, and hope people won't hold it against me, I'm nothing more than a "noble savage" on the topic... Absolutely brilliant from a literary point of view! --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All right, Francis, you've made your point. Enough, OK? Rumiton (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Running in circles: topic by topic as an attempt to come out of that
Note that I just started Talk:Divine Light Mission.

This is the reasoning behind it: we can continue to run in circles regarding a general discussion of the use of Cagan as a source ad infinitum. What I see is that when we start to tackle concrete topics (like the emancipated minor issue), solutions are often easily found, and quickly implemented in main namespace. I expect the same will be the case for Talk:Divine Light Mission. Can we agree on taking such separate points, and leave the unending general discussion for what it is at this point in time? I'm thinking of Steve too: I wouldn't want to be the one reading this wallpaper of a discussion on my mobile device (although that's not for me to decide, of course). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh, thanks. It does get rather hard to view this on my phone (or on my internet when we exceed our download limit, slows to dialup speed). As for having such a general discussion on the Cagan source, I do think that there is no likely success in the current discussion, it's rather clear that a general "yes it can be used" or "no it cannot be used", is highly unlikely to have success, and a better approach would be to look at each use of the source on a case-by-case basis. Steve Crossin   (contact)  13:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I see the point of Francis' suggestion. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 13:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be willing to start a fund to buy Steve a computer. I'm not willing to limit our discussions to what fits on a 2.5" screen. (I can't imagine how Steve has managed so far.) As far as the above discussion goes, I think it's been productive so far and has resulted in a several discoveries about the quality of the source. Obviously, in the long run all that matters is what goes into articles. But when we get to discussing which sources are suitable for a particular assertion then we need to know the background on those sources to make the decision. As we can see from Talk:Divine Light Mission, some editors are still arguing that Cagan is a perfectly reliable source despite the problems already found. I, for one, am not done investigating the source and I object to any premature efforts to end the discussion so long as editors are still insisting it's suitable for all purposes.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh, thanks Will. Let me clarify here. I have a computer, I use it 90% of the time. I just do ask to keep the page readable for when I can't access a PC, I can keep an eye on the mediation. As for the Cagan source, I have considered personally, er, intervening, on how it should be used, as it seems clearish that it can't be decided amongst you, though I am awaiting discussion with Deskana, someone more experienced than me for a little bit of advice. I'm not perfect, but I think it's best to ask fellow mediators for input when needed. Steve Crossin   (contact)  21:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Halley incident
This isn't included in Jayen's list of referencs to the "organization" that we're reviewing, but it follows the chronology and I think it's important to discuss because it shows a number of problems:

"No matter where Maharaji was, however, his message of peace would be met with discontent by certain individuals. In August of 1973, he was in a ceremony, receiving the key to the city of Detroit, when someone in the audience threw a whipped-cream pie in his face. The man hit his mark, but in his usual gracious fashion, Maharaji wiped off his face and continued the ceremony. Afterward, a councilwoman gave him an official salute and a key to the city for his peace efforts all over the world. She ended her talk with a profuse apology for the pie incident.

Maharaji immediately accepted the apology by saying, "Love is the major thing between us all. I want to apologize to the person who threw that pie at me, because he might have been hurt by somebody, or maybe they tried to arrest him. I do not want him arrested, and I do not want him hurt, because if somebody doesn't understand something, you cannot blame him for that." page 190"

Where to begin? Halley isn't named or described. He wasn't in the audience. It was a shaving cream pie, not whipped cream. "Usual gracious fashion"? Most importantly, there's no mention of what the subject's mahatma and follower did to the reporter afterwards. I know that some folks here say that the focus is on Rawat, but it's a bit ridiculous to avoid any mention of the attack while instead spending space on praising the subject's "peace efforts" and his graciousness, and specifically quoting him saying he didn't want the guy hurt, leaving readers with the implication that he wasn't hurt. She doesn't even mention that Rawat issued a statement deploring the attack. In this case there are numerous sources that give the full and correct picture, but if there weren't should we just assume that Cagan is correct and use her as a source despite these errors and omissions in cases where we can cross-check her? I don't think so. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course not. We can (and must) supplement detail missing in Cagan with other sources just as we can do that vice versa. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think we can do that. Cagan isn't a reliable source, per WP:V and per our own invcestigation. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I seem to have misunderstood your earlier comment then. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 00:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If it were merely incomplete that would be possible. But since it's downright inaccurate we can't use it at all. I'd almost be inclined to use it for quotations from the followers she interviewed, but I'm a bit hesitant because of the misuse of the name "Maharaji" long before he used that name. Since she actually changes quotations that pretty much means she's not reliable even for reporting what people have said. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyway, does anyone care to defend Cagan's description of the incident as being full and complete? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So we have another instance in which the coverage is incomplete, inaccurate, and biased. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems to me you are using wildly double standards here, trying to disqualify Cagan for writings that are not "full" or "incomplete", while blandly accepting as "neutral" the far worse writings produced by critical sources that suit your POV. Rumiton (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So you don't dispute that Cagan's reporting of this incident is incomplete, inaccurate, and biased? We have only three biographies of the subject, as noted above. Even the relatively short CBY bio has a more complete, accurate, and neutral account. If this were the only problem with Cagan it'd be forgivable. But as this page shows, there are many such problems. So many that the source, aside from any other qualifications, is questionable. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No article can be "complete," it isn't in the nature of writing, and total accuracy comes into the same category. And I already agreed that I consider Cagan unfortunately biased. The problem is that if the other sources -- the ones you have happily described as "objective" -- are given the same third degree they will fail also, but then you will just say, "Oh no, this is a reputable source. We can cherry-pick here all we (you) want." Rumiton (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As Jayen said, we can use what Cagan gives us, and supplement it with what we find from other sources. There is no suggestion that what she writes is seriously in error. Rumiton (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the argument of "incompleteness" does not seem to be productive. It can be raised against any source whatever, and has no support in policy or guidelines that I am aware of. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 15:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The event wouldn't have even been notable with out the cream pie incident and definitely wouldn't be worth a mention in this article if it weren't for the murder attempt on Pat Halley, who, btw, passed away last November. I strongly oppose using Cagan's version of the event at all because it's inaccurate when placed next to the real version of what happened to Pat Halley.  Btw, the last time I spoke with Pat Halley, around five years ago, he told me that DLM had given him $18,000 as a form of settlement.  He chuckled about how insignificant that amount was considering he had lived out the rest of his life with a metal plate in his head and had suffered all of his life from PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) as a result of the attack.  He also told me about the blood-stained books he still possessed that were sitting in his bookcase from the day he was so savagely beaten and left for dead.  He also has remarked that his claim to world fame was that he pied Guru Maharaj Ji and was almost killed for it.  His death made the news because of the pie throwing incident and the murder attempt.    Sylviecyn (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Sylvie I agree with most of that, but you are doing what you criticise Cagan for doing -- leaving out important details, such as the well-reported claim that Maharaji said he didn't want the person hurt and that he extended his sympathy to him and his family when he was. I think the way he responded to this incident was very indicative of his manner and views. Rumiton (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Major omissions are errors. Omitting the names of the DLM and EV distort the work so much that they are errors. Incorrectly calling the subject "Maharaji" when he used other names in the past is an error. Mentioning that the subject asked for the pie-thrower not to be hurt but omitting that he was nearly beaten to death by followers is an error. The book purports to be "full and complete", but that claim is another error. If this book claimed to be "random, misquoted recollections from current followers", which would be accurate, then there'd little argument that it should be used as a source. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cagan says she approaches her work like a detective on her website, when writing a book. Does Cagan cite any sources for her detective work of this "incident?" No. Does she mention Pat Halley?  No. She fails to mention that two of Rawat's followers misrepresented themselves to Pat as being "disgruntled former followers." She fails to mention that one of Pat Halley's attackers was an Indian Mahatma Fakiranand, a very close associate and agent of Prem Rawat and DLM. The other was an ashram premie.  She fails to mention that they gained entry into Pat's apartment as a result of lying to him, then she fails to mention that they bashed in his skull and left him for dead. It's a serious enough of an omission to call it lying.  She failed to use bona fide sorces for this story, and when she wrote the story, Pat Halley was still alive and available for her to interview.  Btw if one looks at a photo of Rawat with the pie in his face, he doesn't look as forgiving and benevolent as Cagan's flowery prose about it suggests.  PIP is simply not a legitimate biography.  It's yet another piece of Rawat revisionism cooked up to make him look good.  Based on the enormous number of Cagan's omissions found thus far, it's useless as a source for anything in this article.   Sylviecyn (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just found this Detroit Free Press article about the pieing incident. According to the article, the first thing Prem Rawat said right after being pied isn't what Cagan reported, this is the first thing Maharaji said after he wiped the shaving cream off of his face: "This was probably nothing like the nails through Jesus Christ."  Here's a scan of the article/  Sylviecyn (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I note that states that the pie thrower ran forward "from the audience", backing up Cagan in that regard at least. According to Cagan, Rawat said what she quotes him as saying after the ceremony proper. That is consistent with the DFP article, where he is said to have said it "later", and after the "impromptu news conference" where he made the Jesus Christ comment. The Jesus Christ comment, too, is obviously unlikely to have been the first thing he said, assuming that retreating to an inner hallway, cleaning himself up, and acceding to the request for an impromptu news conference will likely have taken a few minutes as well. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 17:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, pls read the DFP article again because the "impromptu press conference" happened first (right after he wiped off the shaving cream and was still back stage) and that's where he made the "Jesus" comment. But, this is really splitting hairs, Jayen.  The point is that Cagan misrepresents the entire event by not naming the pie thrower, who was later attacked by close Rawat devotees, who subsequently were never charged with attempted murder in Michigan.  I'm not implying that Rawat had anything to do with the murder attempt, because there's no evidence of that.  After all of the good analysis done here of PIP by editors, yourself included, it's clear that Cagan wasn't concerned with portraying the events of Rawat's life in a complete manner when she wrote the book.  It's not only biased, but it's incomplete in too many ways to trust, and based on the fact she had so much contact with TPRF and close followers, the incompleteness seems deliberate.  It's not good writing and/or journalism.   Sylviecyn (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If we're critiquing the book to establish or refute its reliability, we have to be precise ourselves. You said, According to the article, the first thing Prem Rawat said right after being pied isn't what Cagan reported. You misread Cagan; she does not say it was "the first thing" he said, she quite clearly states that he said it later, after the ceremony. So there is in fact no issue here about what she reports him as saying, she is in perfect agreement with the DFP in that regard. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 15:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's dreadfully written, I will certainly give you that, but I think if you applied such stringent standards of completeness to everything written about Prem Rawat, nothing would get through. I don't have my copy right now, but it is a huge book, extensively covering a wide variety of subjects. I am also not saying it is unbiased, but what purpose would be gained by omitting Halley's name? I can see none. Rumiton (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess if she had mentioned the name, people could google it and find out that he was assaulted later (?). But honestly, it seems a somewhat flimsy base to cast that kind of aspersion. And on the other hand, why dignify what the council president quoted by the DFP characterised as a "disgusting and juvenile" act by including the perpetrator's name? She should perhaps have mentioned that the man was hurt later by two disciples; but then again there is no evidence or suggestion whatsoever that that was anything to do with Rawat himself. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 15:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the perpetrators was one of Rawat's leading mahatmas, the first who'd come to the U.S. They drove a DLM-registered car to the assault. They did it in response to Rawat being pied. Reliable sources say he later sent them abroad. The idea that Rawat can absolve himself of any responsibility for things done on his behalf, in his name, by his senior apostles is ridiculous. Elsewhere he says that his followers would do anythig he told them to do. Elsewhere we have followers saying they'd kill on his behalf. This beating was cited in scholarly books about the the subject and his movement as an example of cult violence. Pretending it didn't happen is not a valid choice for the writer of a non-fiction book, and that alone make the book a questionable resource. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Judging from what Sylviecyn said earlier, I don't think any source alleges that Rawat ordered the attack, or knew of it beforehand. Have I missed something? And wasn't there something in an earlier discussion about the perpetrators being held by DLM for the police to pick up (who, for whatever reason, didn't follow up)? Personally, it seems quite plausible to me that the two premies concerned acted of their own accord, just because someone had insulted their guru – even more inane, and disproportionately more criminal, than what Halley did. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 22:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reread Rennie Davis' comments to Robert Scheer. The issue here is not the incident, or even Rawat's involvement, it is the coverage of the matter in PIP. Failing to mention the the fact that one of Rawat's senior officials nearly beat a man to death for throwing a pie, an attack that was widely reported, once again calls the relibility of the book into question. This idea that Rawat had no involvement with the people he lead and gave orders to, no responsibility for the actions of the church he led and that paid his bills, is absurd, IMO. The bottom line is that we can't trust this book for reporting factual matters because the reporting is so selective as to present a deply skewed version of events. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Will's extraordinary biased opinion that Halley's beating was "done on his behalf, in his name" is offensive and against BLP. Please remove it immediately.Momento (talk) 03:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not extraordinary at all. It certainly wasn't done on Pat Halley's behalf.  Mahatma Fakiranand held a position of power at Prem Rawat's behest.  Everything he did was on Rawat's behalf by virtue of his position and service as an agent of Rawat and DLM.  That doesn't mean to say Rawat knew about the attack beforehand.  That's the distinction.  Sylviecyn (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So Rennie Davis thought that Guru Maharaj Ji was responsible and that the attackers were in the guru's "good graces". Other followers, boith in this article, in other articles, and even on video, are recorded as saying they would kill if asked by their guru. The guru demanded blind obedience, and that is what he got. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Will, Rennie Davis does not say that "Rawat gave the order". You have to remember that premies ascribed all sorts of events to Rawat's miraculous doing – if they found a vegetarian restaurant on a trip, it was Maharaj Ji's doing, if they found a parking spot in front of it it was Maharaj Ji's doing, if the sun shone it was Maharaj Ji's doing, etc. Davis says, I really feel Guru Maharaj Ji is doing everything. He had the pie thrown in his face, and he had Fakiranand do that - the whole thing is just one gigantic lila that operates on so many levels. Davis, in his "blissed-out state", claims that Rawat was as responsible for the pie-throwing as he was for the attack on Halley. (And he may be right, if not necessarily in the way he meant it.)
 * Your assertion that Rawat verbally ordered the attack and others executed it is not covered by what Davis is saying.
 * And by the way, Davis said the perpetrators were "back in the guru's good graces", which if anything implies that they were temporarily "out" of his good graces.  Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 11:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is huge relevance of the attack on Halley to any understanding the way Rawat came to be 'received' by what historically had been his prime recruiting ground in the US, namely the youth movement. Foss & Larkin do not name Halley but do reference the Ken Kelley article:
 * The Divine Light Mission achieved prominence in 1973-74, receiving a substantial amount of coverage in the print and electronic media. Its festival in November 1973, called Millennium -'73 was held in the Houston Astrodome and was the youth culture event of the year. It received coverage by local, national and international press and was the subject of a documentary shown on the public television network. As it achieved notoriety, the Mission alternatively became the focus of public outrage and ridicule. It stood accused of "brainwashing" America's youth and turning them into "zombies" (Kelley, 1974a). There were several instances in which the famed "deprogrammer," Ted Patrick, attempted to kidnap devotees and "deprogram" them. The remnants of the New Left claimed that the Mission was a "proto-fascist" group with a potential for violence and terroristic activities (Kelley, 1974a)
 * Even if (and it is a very big if)the attack on Halley is distanced from Rawat, its effect on how Rawat was perceived by the young in North America is fundamental to any understanding of Rawat's 'reception' in the mid 1970s. Even a sympathetic biographer would have questioned the subject on their response to such an event and have sought to identify the effects of the fallout from (depending on perspective)a misguided tragedy or a murderous intent. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The topic here is not Mahatma Fakiranand, Guru Maharaj Ji, or Pat Halley, nor even the pie incident or beating. The topic is the coverage of those in PIP. I again assert that, for a book-length biography that its publisher claims is "full and complete", the coverage is so incomplete and biased as to call the reliability of the book as a source into question. As for the incident itself, it is adequately covered in the "DLM" article and no one is proposing to any changes. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

PIP not Cagan
I think that the discussion has become rather nebulous, largely because Cagan is being identified as ‘the source’ rather than the single book she compiled which deals with the subject with which we are concerned. Cagan is not an ‘expert’ whose whole body of work may be considered as relevant – it is just the single offering Peace is Possible that we are concerned with. Cagan’s failures or successes as a researcher are of course relevant but we should be clear that it is only within the terms of the single work that we can judge those failures or successes.

Although PIP is presented by Cagan and the publishers as an ‘authoritative work the numerous failures demonstrated on this talk page show it to be anything but reliable, while the status of the publishers in respect of the DLM history means that PIP must be considered self published for the purposes of editing the Divine Light Mission and Elan Vital articles. The question then, is what in PIP can used as reference for the Prem Rawat BLP  ?

Rumiton states that there is no suggestion that what Cagan writes (meaning the book Peace is Possible) is seriously in error – while several other editors are saying precisely that, that PIP is indeed an erroneous history, at least in terms of its scale and number of omissions. Rumiton also suggests that what Cagan ‘gives us’ i.e the material in PIP, can be supplemented, and Jayen supports this in terms that no source can be wholly complete. The question then devolves to: a) are the omissions in PIP, deficiencies in information which can be supplied from other sources ? Or b) are the omissions in PIP such that either the work as a whole, or individual points of reference, fail under WP:V ?

I believe that the position argued for by Rumiton and Jayen is flawed, the scale of omission in PIP renders it a questionable source, and at the very least each and every reference proposed to be made to PIP, in the Rawat BLP, must not merely be matched with ‘supplementary sources’ but must be corroborated by independent sourcing. Of course a source that needs such independent verification might be considered to be surplus to requirement. If this position is accepted the only way forward is for any proposal to use PIP as a reference, is for that specific reference to be matched with a definitive verifying reference, such that PIP would never appear in the Rawat BLP as a stand alone source. That said, and in the absence of any useful verfiability references, I strongly agree with Francis assessment above that PIP is not a useable source: In sum, Cagan's book can only be used as a source about itself: in Wikipedia environment, that means: only in an article about the *book* Peace Is Possible: The Life and Message of Prem Rawat'' (which wouldn't make it to an article yet per WP:Notability (books) - a few weeks/days/months on the Amazon top 200 just isn't enough). Marginally it could be used in Andrea Cagan's article for parts that are about herself (the intro about her method maybe - currently enclosed here in a collapsible box: so yes there's a third article where the book could be used). But that's about it. Yes, additional support for statements that can be sourced to more reliable sources too would maybe be possible, but not in a "Stoner&Parke say tatata Cagan on the other hand says tututu" style, that would be a fraud of NPOV (and Undue weight) as far as I can see. (Francis Schonken)'' --Nik Wright2 (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nik, I have posted my position twice on this page here, most recently at 23:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC). What you are describing above is not it.
 * I maintain that some of the arguments raised against Cagan here don't convince me.
 * These include the "incompleteness" argument. Cagan contains much material, especially covering the last fifteen to twenty years, where our other sources have practically nothing – that is their incompleteness, eh? The fact that Cagan gives equal weight to all phases of Rawat's life to date is one of the strongest arguments in favour of her work.
 * The Maharaji/Maharaj Ji spelling difference is a non-issue to me.
 * The omission of the DLM/EV names I am prepared to put up with, for reasons already stated.
 * It has been pointed out several times that Cagan's work claims to be a "full" or "authoritative" bio and isn't. The problem is that Cagan does not claim to have written such a work, on the contrary (p. xi–xii). Since when do we hold authors responsible for the content of publishers' advertising blurbs?
 * Cagan does at times appear to be factually wrong or so tendentious as to make her unreliable. This includes her account of the Daily Californian coverage, her claiming that media reported on an ulcer without there having been an official diagnosis, when in fact all the earliest articles we have found cite Rawat's doctor. Likewise her account of Rawat's court case against Satpal is tendentious, omitting the judge's criticism of both brothers reported in other reliable sources and in effect crediting Rawat, rather than the judge, with getting both cases dropped (p. 209). Referring to the Malibu estate as a "little" house is also beyond the pail for me.
 * As Francis has pointed out, SPS or QS is the same for practical purposes, so either of those will do for me. Cagan should be used within the limitations imposed by that as a source on Rawat. Its main use should be in guiding research for sources corroborating her statements.
 * In addition, I'm open to the idea of using her, with attribution, to describe premies' viewpoints. I think she is an RS for those viewpoints. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that a convincing case has been made for categorizing the book as self-published by Prem Rawat. The connection between him and the Prem Rawat Foundation is unclear, and the connection between the MightyRiver Press and the foundation is even more unclear. The foundation is based in California while the press is in Pennsylvania for starters. For those reasons, it'd be more appropriate to treat it as a questionable source rather than a self-published one, if it even meets that threshold. As for the other issues, the problem with using PIP when we don't have other sources is that we cannot trust the author to give a fair and reasonably complete accounting of any incident. The reason that there are no sources for the past 20 years is that the subject made a point of avoiding press coverage. Only recently has the steady stream of press releases started up again, and the press isn't to blame for ignoring them. And in fact, about a third of the book is devoted to the 1970s. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * IIRC, we do have a paper by Geaves as well for more recent developments. And by all means let's continue to look at passages in Cagan in the way we have been. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 09:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify a few points raised by Jayen. An "official diagnosis" would presumably be made by the hospital where he was treated, not Rawat's doctor, who variously claimed Rawat "may have had" a stomach ulcer, duodenal ulcer and gall bladder attack,  was obviously not the attending physician. Cagan's summary about the court case has Rawat "listening  to false accusation for nearly an hour in a private talk with the judge" sounds like criticism to me. And her claim that Rawat dropped his case first can be seen as the catalyst to "both" cases being dropped. And the house that was bought in 1974 is not the house pictured in the Google photo.Momento (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, what she terms "false accusations" may be meant to include what the judge said. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 09:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if everything you say about the doctors is true, it is disingenuous of Cagan (or an honest mistake) to blame the press for reporting on something when Rawat's travelling physician went out of his way to make statements to the press on it in the first place. (And no one appears to have found any articles predating Horton's statements made to the press, which might have justified Cagan's complaint.) Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Momento leaves off the last half of a sentence: "...Mahraji withdrew his counterclaim and asked for the proceedings to be stopped immediately." Here's what a reliable source says happpened:


 * As for a diagnosis, in the United States it is doctors who make the diagnosis of their patients. Hospitals just provide the facilities. Regarding the "little house", are you saying that it was little when the DLM bought it? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The estate is pictured in a 1979 article (Guru Maintains Following Despite Rising Mistrust of Cults, Jan 12, 1979, Los Angeles Times), showing what it looked like prior to the work done on it in the nineties. It was smaller then, but it was not a little house. (I know houses are bigger in the States, but still ...) Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 10:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cagan refers to a private talk with the judge, while the press referred to a hearing, which appears to have been public, since they report on its contents. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 09:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it is doctors who make the diagnosis but there is no suggestion that Horton was the doctor who treated Rawat at the hospital. The fact that Rawat was admitted to hospital in the first place suggests that it was beyond the capabilities of 30 year old Horton. So Cagan may well be right. An independent newspaper says "Maharaj Ji then stepped forward and unconditionally withdrew his defamation suit against his brother. After some coaxing from the judge, Bhagwan Ji withdrew his suit" And PIP says "Maharaji withdrew his counterclaim and asked for the proceedings to be stopped immediately, out of respect for his late father. The judge responded positively. After being shamed by the judge for disrespecting his father's name, Bal Bhagwan Ji with drew his claim as well". No much difference there. And the picture is from 1979, the property was purchased in 1974, so it may well have been a "small house" five years before it was described as " a palatial walled estate" as PIP claims. Add a little common sense and the driveway that was "often crowded with cars and trucks" is indicative of a building site and the walls a necessary safety measure.Momento (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but would a "little house", even on a reasonably large plot of land, have cost $400,000 in the mid-seventies? The average US house price at the end of 1974 was around $40,000. Today, it is around $300,000 (source: ). This means that the value of the house, as bought at the time, was around $3,000,000 in today's money. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 13:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to Jayen..Jayen, really it would help with the clarity of the discussion if you were to write in terms of ‘it’ the book PIP, rather than “her” – Cagan. We can only be concerned with what is in that one book, not the qualities of Cagan as a writer, it seems to me the two are being, or at least in danger of being, confused. I accept that I may have mischaracterised your expressed position, but you did seem to be agreeing with Rumiton who was arguing for a less restrictive use of PIP than you had previously proposed. You write: Its main use should be in guiding research for sources corroborating her statements. In addition, I'm open to the idea of using her, with attribution, to describe premies' viewpoints. I think she is an RS for those viewpoints.


 * The issue of research is of course non controversial, but we need to be clear in the light of Rumiton’s argument, that “corroborating” statements will not validate PIP as a whole,  only those issues where specific corroboration is found. As for the matter of ‘premies viewpoints',  I fear you have created a logic loop. If PIP is as you’ve argued Self Published by Rawat – then claims about third parties (premies) are expressly forbiden under WP:V. I’m inclined to agree that PIP is representative of the views of some of Rawat’s current followers; however that representative status is merely a reflection of the SPS status of PIP, as applied to its publishers, who are current followers of Rawat. This SPS status has the consquential result of rendering PIP an unreliable source for the DLM and EV articles. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * See my earlier post dd. 23:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC) above. Of course corroboration of one fact in PIP by another source does not validate all of PIP.
 * I do not argue that PIP is self-published by Rawat, but I argue that it has been published by people as close to Rawat as makes no difference for our purposes. The same applies to premies – I see it as a RS for premies' views (i.e. those that were interviewed and are named by Cagan), as well as Rawat's views, the same way an SPS is a reliable source for the views of its author. So if we should want to describe premies' views, or Rawat's, based on quotes in the book, we can cite these views to PIP, as far as I am concerned. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 22:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we have evidence of the closeness of the publishers or writer to Rawat? By comparion, we do have evidence that M. Dettmer was very close to the subject. If we deem PIP to be a SPS, why wouldn't we also allow forum posting by Dettmer to be used in the same manner? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nik posted evidence a while back, which was not contested. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 10:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I missed this comment. I'll respond at the bottom of this thread. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I also remember Sylviecyn mentioning that the book was sold or given free to VIPs at Rawat speaking events. (Can't remember exactly – have I got that right, Sylviecyn?) Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 10:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * TPRF gave out PIP and other promotional materials in gift baskets at the GRAMMY and Academy Awardceremonies in 2007. I don't know what they do at Rawat speaking events.  Sylviecyn (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are a number of instances of Rawat related organisations using PIP as merchandising, including inclusion in ‘goody bags’ at a sponsored Hollywood awards ceremony and a charity event in London. TPRF gives the book a web page puff and PIP can be bought through the Words of Peace.Com website  which is owned by Dunrite Productions which works closely with Elan Vital Inc. including handling of the Keys DVD distribution in the US. However all of this only links PIP to Rawat’s supporters, not him directly, and while on the basis of simple reasoning I agree with Jayen that to all intents PIP is self published by Rawat, I can’t see that WP:V allows that absolute deduction. So while the link between TPRF and the publisher of PIP provides the identification of PIP as self published by current followers of Rawat who are closely associated with the promotion of Rawat, unless I have misunderstood WP:V,  PIP can’t be judged as SPS for the purposes of the Rawat BLP. Rather it is just an unreliable source.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the detail, Sylviecyn and Nik. Remember that WP:SPS and WP:QS are handled identically in WP, as per WP:SELFPUB, and that one of the definitions of a WP:QS is its being "promotional" in nature. From what you say, the book is used as a promotional tool, its content has a promotional bias, so let us agree it can be used as per WP:SELFPUB – because it really does not matter whether we categorise it as WP:SPS or WP:QS, and it is either one or the other, or both. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 13:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What matters is the "self" because if Rawat didn't write or publish PIP then he is a third party and it can't be used as a source for anything about him. It can only be used as a source for Cagan and MightRivier Press, the author and publisher. If anyone has evidence that Rawat was the publisher or author then it would be helpful to review it now. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you sure it matters? If it is not a WP:SPS, then it is surely a promotional WP:QS – witness it being given away by his org. Besides, it also contains a large number of quotes of him, many dated.
 * If you check the discussion archives of WP:V, it is quite apparent that "about themselves" does not mean "the article on the book/website", but the "article about the organisation or person who has published the source". For example, the Coca Cola company webpage is a SPS/QS that can be used to source information to be included in the article on the Coca Cola company – including information on its managers and employees – but subject to the restrictions spelt out in WP:SELFPUB. On the other hand, it cannot be used as a source of information on Pepsi Cola. Mutatis mutandis, that would apply to PIP as well. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 18:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we have any evidence that Rawat's orgnization published the book? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Above, Jayen posted a link to at previous discussion, saying it was uncontested Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 29. The evidence there is that the MightRiver Press was founded by two board members of the Prem Rawat Foundation. However it was not founded by the foundation itself. There's no evidence that the foundation had any involvement. The relationship of the foundation and Prem Rawat isn't clear either. As Nik Wright said, "Therefore Levin is, via the unregistered Mighty River Press, the publisher of Rawat’s biography." Furthemore, this press release from the publisher makes no mention of the foundation.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Size of house

 * Also regarding the point "size of the house". It should be noted that Cagan uses "estate", which separates out the category of small houses and apartments. Thats probably the reason she mentions "little estate" and it seems quiet clear to me.--Taxed123 (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) "Little estate" – is that really what she writes? I come back to point 6: Cagan's style is inappropriate for a reliable source. Next we'll be talking about Rawat's small collection of cars or his little airplane (it never was a 747!). Sure there are bigger ones for these cases too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On page 202, she says "a beautiful little house in Malibu with a For Sale sign out front". -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 19:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So far, no one has provided any evidence to suggest Cagan was incorrect with her in description of "a beautiful little house" in 1974. I would imagine that a prime, secure, south facing four acre block with a beautiful little house with uninterrupted ocean views in Malibu would be worth 10 times as much an average home.Momento (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. Having checked an estate agent (http://www.livingmalibu.com), I have verified that $3 million today (the equivalent of $400,000 in 1974) will buy you a "beautiful little house" with a sea view in Malibu. A 2-bedroom, 1.75 bath home in a similar sort of position goes for $2.7 million. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jayen, once again an example supposed to show PIP is unreliable proves the opposite.Momento (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's invalid research. Jayen is assuming that real estate in Malibu has appreciated as the same rate as inflation. If we want to engage in that type of research it would be more accurate to check area listing from the period. This is certainly not a confirmation of the assertion in PIP. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that we would have to look at what went for $400,000 on Malibu Beach in 1974, but note that I did the calculation on the basis of average US house price figures, given here, rather than inflation figures. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 11:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A quick search finds that actor Vincent Price sold his beachfront home in 1973 for $255,000 in lieu of having it taken through condemnation. The 1.5 acre property had 50 feet of beach frontage and mature trees. The house, which may have figured little in the price since it would be torn down, had 8 rooms including three bedrooms and two baths, and Mrs. Price said it had been extensivel remodeled with imported tile and wood. I don't think it's possible to infer the size of the Anacapa View Estates house from the price of the property. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A condemned house on 1.5 acres versus a beautiful, little house on 4 acres! Sounds like Rawat good a good deal. We must assume that PIP is innocent until proven guilty and the house issue is just further evidence that PIP is reliable.Momento (talk) 02:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify, it was condemned in order to add the property to a state park, not because the house was in bad shape - just the opposite, Mrs. Price was bitching that they had to sell after having renovated it. But getting back to the matter at hand, if you want to assert that PIP is accurate on this point the burden is on you to show that it was a "little house" when purchased. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Gee Will, you're really turning Wiki rules upside down. If you want to contest PIP's claim, please provide a source and we'll include it.Momento (talk) 08:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * L.A. Times, Nov 27, 1974 --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Francis but where does this source contradict PIP?Momento (talk) 09:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Manual of Style (dates and numbers). We're not contesting Cagan's claim as such, but its suitability for Wikipedia. In fact this is a beautiful example for that Wikipedia guideline ("Use accurate measurements whenever possible"), so I added it as an example there. Couldn't resist. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Vague indeed. Cagan is describing a "little house", Dart is describing "land and buildings", so the "little house" is just one building in a package that cost $400,000. And you'll note that Dart doesn't say Rawat bought a "home" or a "house" but a "home base" . But Dart is not a reliable source because academic publications, usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, say the property was bought by premies. So we can't use Dart anyway.Momento (talk) 06:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a distinction without a difference. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't we addressing Peace is Possible as self-published?
I've read all the discussions about the accuracy of Cagan compared to other sources but I'm surprised editors aren't addressing the fundamental issue with Peace is Possible and that is that it is self-published. Rawat's followers clearly paid Cagan to write the book, and then set up a publishing company (that still hasn't published anything else) to publish the book. Most of the discussions above would be moot if we could agree the book is self-published, and should only be used for non-contentious content. --John Brauns (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If anyone needs evidence that Mighty River Press, the publishers of Peace is Possible, is a vanity publisher, here is a quote from their website:- "Mighty River Press publishes high-quality contemporary books about self-discovery..." - note the plural - they haven't published any other book. --John Brauns (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We've addressed that point before, though never conclusively. Based on my evaluation of the source, I think it doesn't meet any of the standards for a reliable source unless it's treated as a self-published source, in which case it may be used in a limited fashion per WP:SPS. However there are problems with calling it a self-published source because it wasn't directly published by Rawat. That means it's just a book by an author with a mediocre reputation published by a one-book publisher with no reputation for reliability. If a similar book were published by anyone else, say ex-followers, we wouldn't allow it at all. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * PIP has been conclusively proven to be a reliable source according to Wikipedia. It is not self published, the author is independent with several best selling biographies, it has been published by experienced and reputable publishers. So based on Wiki rules it is a reliable source.Momento (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The National Enquirer sells more issues in a month then any of Cagan's books do in a year, but mere sales don't make a publication reliable. MightyRiver is not an experienced or reputable publisher - it's a one-book publisher owned by followers. the book has proven errors and major omissions. By Wikipedia policies, especially WP:V and WP:BLP, it is not a reliable source and should not be used for any article, much less a BLP.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Momento, you are seriously calling into question your good faith as an editor by claiming that Mighty River Press is an experienced and reputable publisher. Experienced? - they have only published one book!  Reputable? - they have no reputation at all!  Was this an attempt at subtle humour?? --John Brauns (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason this discussion goes on and on is because you keep forgetting the previous answers to your questions. PIP has been published by established and reputable publishers in Europe, so that dismisses that reason.Momento (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And you have ignored Nik_Wright2's rebuttal of this argument at --John Brauns (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Translating a book into a foreign language does not improve its reliability. If you see a polcy which says so please share it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Re. In terms of reliability, I would argue that her book is better than The Register, Comparing to Cagan that it seems far better researched than Collier, and is at least as reliable as a source for facts as Rolling Stone magazine. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely not. We have Cade Metz' own declarations on how much time (and research) he put in a single article, how he invited all key players (from opposing sides!) to respond, etc. If compared (research per word written) Metz definitely scores higher.
 * Collier is an autobiography (primary source or very close to it and all that), the matter of "research" doesn't even have to come into the picture. We treat it as a primary source per WP:PSTS
 * Far from. The Rolling Stone article is an average reliable source, Cagan is a questionable source, per WP:V, look for the words ...are promotional in nature... (didn't you read what I wrote above?).
 * As a matter of fact, I didn't (I started researching the archives before dinner, and finished the post after washing up). :-) Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 22:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In sum, Cagan's book can only be used as a source about itself: in Wikipedia environment, that means: only in an article about the *book* Peace Is Possible: The Life and Message of Prem Rawat (which wouldn't make it to an article yet per WP:Notability (books) - a few weeks/days/months on the Amazon top 200 just isn't enough). Marginally it could be used in Andrea Cagan's article for parts that are about herself (the intro about her method maybe - currently enclosed here in a collapsible box: so yes there's a third article where the book could be used). But that's about it. Yes, additional support for statements that can be sourced to more reliable sources too would maybe be possible, but not in a "Stoner&Parke say tatata Cagan on the other hand says tututu" style, that would be a fraud of NPOV (and Undue weight) as far as I can see. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that's a plausible conclusion. However there's still more material from Cagan to review. But the category of "questionable source" that Jayen suggested may be fitting. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * PIP does not seem to come within the terms of WP:SPS, as related to the article Prem Rawat, however the issues are different in respect of the articles Divine Light Mission and Elan Vital. DLM is currently treated as both ‘movement’ and organisation and while Elan Vital is treated as purely an organisation, the fact that DLM and EV are one and the same, merely separated into two articles by an arbitrary chronological division, it is irrational to say that if WP:SPS applies to a source for DLM that it wouldn’t apply for Elan Vital. PIP is ‘first’ published by MRP, which has undoubted connections to individuals who were part of DLM, further TPRF contracted editorial support for the PIP author, and all the Directors of  TPRF were part of the DLM (and at least one has served as an Officer of Elan Vital). Further still,  translations of PIP are published by organisations which share absolute purposes with Elan Vital.


 * The judgement of this issue could to some extent be made less difficult were the various proposals to ‘merge’ articles to be pursued, however as things stand the relevance of WP:SPS is established for the DLM, and by reasoned extension to Elan Vital articles, unless that is it is to be argued that Cagan was anything other than a ‘commissioned author’ writing on behalf of Mighty River Press/TPRF. And as there is no ‘expert’ element (sociologist etc) in the PIP work it must therefore fail as a usable source for the DLM and Elan Vital articles by relevance of WP:SPS, if not for the Rawat article.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (Copied from below) Two arguments against PIP have been –
 * PIP must be regarded as "a source supplied by the movement and its practitioners", and therefore it cannot be used as a third-party source about Rawat and his movements in the sense of WP:V.
 * PIP must not be considered a WP:SPS, because Rawat and TPRF have not published it themselves.


 * In essence, this amounts to saying that
 * it should be considered as "not self-published" if that supports the view that it should not be used, and
 * it should be considered as "self-published" when that supports the view that it should not be used.
 * Clearly, the logic is slightly awry here; these seem to be rationalisations of a-priori decisions, rather than arguments leading to such decisions – or, as I put it earlier, "arguing both ends against the middle."
 * In my view, the restrictions placed upon the use of PIP by WP:SELFANDQUEST are sufficient. They are quite comprehensive. Within them, it is fine to be used for the articles subject to this mediation. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 19:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Regardless of previous discussions, for a publication to be considered a self-published source for Prem Rawat we need to be able to show that it was written or published by him or by an organization he controls. He clearly did not write it. There's no evidence that he owns or controls the publisher, Mighty River Press. Therefore it is not self-published by Prem Rawat. The previous assertion that it should be categorized as a questionable source do not require that we make such a finding, and I think that, given the review we've made of its errors, omissions, and biases, it appears to be the correct way to approach this source. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Jayen, I certainly have not argued for the position you characterise, and I haven’t concluded that anyone else has, although different editors may have argued for each one of those positions separately. There are three areas of failure about PIP each of which has a separate effect:


 * As has been very well demonstrated on this page there is significant unreliability in PIP to the extent that it must be regarded as failing under WP:V as a source, at the minimum it can only be regarded as WP:QS


 * PIP is self published by a one book publisher who is not registered as a business operating for the purposes of publishing. PIP fails the ‘expert clause’ of WP:SPS, and further fails under the third party clause for the purposes of a BLP.


 * PIP is self published by a one book publisher who is not registered as a business operating for the purposes of publishing. PIP fails the ‘expert clause’ of WP:SPS and further multiply fails under WP:VSELPUB for the purposes of articles about Rawat related organisations/movement because it is "a source supplied by the movement and its practitioners".


 * I think it would be a logical position (though I’m unclear what WP policy actually is) to conclude that the failures of PIP should be considered to be cumulative and not merely separate problems to be levered into whatever might fit so to allow limited use, and that the cumulative effect of PIP’s multiple failures render it unusable.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hospitalization
Another of the incidents that is well-reported in 3rd party sources is the subject's hospitalization in 1973. We reviewed sources on this topic when we were drafting the text for our own biography. Let's compare Cagan to those other sources. (If anyone else has some feel free to add to the list.)

There seem to be several problems here. First, Cagan claims an entirely different context than the AP reports. Carter (who probably wrote both accounts) has him travelling and exhausted, Cagan has him entangled in office politics. Second, Carter reports Horton's diagnosis as well as Mishler's comments on the diagnosis, while Cagan insists no diagnosis was ever made. Third, Cagan implies the press made up the "stressed businessman" angle, while Carter quotes Horton describing his patient as showing the "stresses of a middle-aged executive". Cagan highlights a missed meeting, while Carter says that the patient was back at the HQ right after being released from the hospital. Fourth, the quotation from  Henry Jacobs lacks context about his relevant contact with the subject. It's not clear if he worked in the HQ, or if he was a member of the council, or if he just heard about all of this 3rd hand. Finally, Cagan says that the subject was 16 at the time, while we know he didn't turn 16 until December. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd mentioned this issue before on this page (12:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)). The earliest press reports I could find then mentioned Dr Horton, his premie physician, saying he had an ulcer. Editors may want to double-check this – if anyone can find earlier press reports stating he had an ulcer, Cagan would be in the clear; otherwise, she is simply wrong (and making a gratuitious point based on misrepresenting the facts).  Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 13:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is the earliest report (Sep. 3rd), also mentioning his doctor: -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 13:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

THE DAILY TIMES Salisbury, Md., Mon., Sept. 3, 1973 Fast Pace Hits Teenage Guru By MALCOLM S. CARTER DENVER (AP) - Guru Maharaj Ji, the 15-year-old "Perfect Master" from India, has an ulcer. His doctor says the teenage guru's body is showing the stresses of a middle-aged executive. Copy of document http://www.ex-premie.org/gallery/news/1973/18103472.html There's some nutiness from Glen Whitacker reported in the London Times: THE TIMES TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 4 1973 The Times Diary Perfect ulcer ''I was sorry, and even surprised, to hear that the Guru Maharaj Ji, leader of the Divine Light Mission, has developed an intestinal ulcer. After all, ulcers are not things you associate with 15 year olds - especially not with 15-year-old Perfect Masters. Wasn't there, I wondered, something incompatible between a god incarnate - as the 6,000,000 Divine Light followers regard the Guru - and an ulcer?'' Not at all, Glen Whittaker, general secretary of the Divine Light Mission in England told me, "His body is mortal. He can get colds and everything else you can get. But being perfect he is detached from the world. Physical illness would not make him suffer". ''Whittaker denied reports that the Guru ate a lot of ice cream. "His diet is very frugal and healthy", he said. He added that he had not heard about the boy god's ulcer but it did not surprise him. "Nothing about the Guru surprises me", he said.'' The later (October) Rolling Stone article adds "liver disorder" to its comment on the Hospitalisation story however that I believe derives from a separate ealier incident in India, but I can't find a usable source for it. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also from Sept 3rd


 * UPI/Los Angeles Times says this:
 * The young yogi[sic] was not in the camp Sunday. "He hasn't eaten anything for three days," said Arthur Brigham, 22, of Denver. Fasting? "No," said Brigham. "He's sick." "He's having trouble with his liver," Dr. Edward Hanzelik of Brooklyn, one of the camp physicians, said. As for the guru's foliowers, "We've been treating a lot of dysentery and colds," Hanzelik said, "and there have been some emotional problems." He said the problems occurred "mostly in people who want to get closer to the perfect knowledge. When they are not close to the knowledge, they get depressed and unhappy," he said. 
 * "YOGI, OTHERS SICK:Bliss lmperfect at Camp of India Guru" Los Angeles Times; Nov 27, 1972; pg. A13
 * So there was some kind of liver ailment in 1972, which Cagan doesn't mention, along with the dysentery that Rumiton's friends don't recollect, in a contemporaneous report. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Will, Rumiton has never denied that there were cases of dysentery. Or as the other user, uninvolved in these discussions, said, "It was marvelous, despite the poor sanitation at the guru's ashram, which made lots of people sick for a while with dysentery." That's quite different from the picture Argosy magazine paints. Basically, if you travelled to India in those days as a Westerner, you could be certain to get diarrhoea soon after you arrived, and be ill with it for three or four days. Different germs. May not be much different today. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 10:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A gratuitously nasty comment Will, and a fatuous one. I said I heard there was diarrhea, there always is among westerners in India. Dysentery is just way more serious, people die from it. I never heard of it happening at any Prem Rawat event in India. Rumiton (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The number of dysentery cases is secondary - though there is a diffence between "some dysentery" and "a lot of dysentery". (See also Lammers' account). More to the point, here is another illness of Rawat's, one which Cagan doesn't report at all. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For Cagan to choose to comment on the ulcer, but not upon the liver problem is perverse, the two illness events were less than a year apart, and the liver problem was potentially a far more serious health issue. Also given the public statements made by Drs Horton and Hanzelik, and given that both continue in practice at the same health centre, a few miles from Rawat’s Malibu home, and that Horton at least has continued to be associated with Rawat, it would hardly have been a huge investigative leap for Cagan to question them both to get the record straight.


 * I’m not sure how helpful Jayen's quoted other user is, given the writer gets Rawat’s age wrong. For what it’s worth, my memory is that there were a lot of stomach upsets, but dysentery would have been a major issue, it is a serious illness and anything on a wide scale would have required outside intervention to control its spread.My recollection is that most people were hit with a nasty 'three day' bug which left us drained for a further week or so. The rampant colds were as much to do with sleeping on the ground in old army tents when the temperature hit freezing. Jayen’s observations are not really relevant – the sickness was largely a problem in the later part of the 3-5 week trip, the acclimatisation process having happened in Delhi where only a few people became ill. Sanitation at the Haridwar ashram, although basic was actually quite well managed, however food preparation and the cleaning processes left a lot to be desired, quite simply the systems were inadequate for the task. In any event Horton and  Hanzelik managed the medical set up by berating those who were sick for not being devoted enough and from some unexplained medical logic, doled out single doses of antibiotics to those who turned up at the medical tent in various levels of discomfort. But memory is a poor source – almost as bad as PIP.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I was right on the "three-day bug" aspect at least. But thanks for the added detail, it's appreciated, and you're right of course about the age. At any rate, the Argosy article seemed to be a bit mean-spirited about the thing, but I am aware we're straying off topic, so I will leave it at that. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 01:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Millennium
Moving on, here is the coverage of the Millennium 73 event, on pages 192-193. Recall that a number of writers consider this to be among the two most important events in the subject's life (the other being his marriage).

We have already posted so many sources on this topic that I won't post contrasting sources here, though we can if we need to address specific points. In summary, the book gives little space to the event which gave the subject his greatest prominence in the U.S. It neglects to mention that his own failings as a speaker were the main source of the bad reviews. Its depiction of the event is so different from accounts in numerous reliable sources that it virtually qualifies as a fringe source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "...his upcoming Millennium event" - This is a curious possesive. Several editors here say that he had little to do with the planning for the event - how was it "his"?
 * "...in Houston, Texas..." - How many sources for this event fail to mention that it was held at the Astrodome?
 * "...for 200,000 people" - Some credit should be given for not underplaying the expectations
 * "...sixty-foot-tall stage" - Accounts of the height vary, but 60' is at the high end. Thirty-five feet is closer to the most common estimate.
 * "...with a full orchestra creating background ambience." - No mention that the bandleader was the subject's brother (as is mentoiend in every other account), or that the orchestra had been touring for weeks to drum up publicity for the vent. "Background ambience" implies that the music was in the background of other events, while detailed accounts make it clear that it had dedicated concerts.
 * "On the evening of the event, the press was out in hordes." - A reliable source says that invitations had been sent to hundreds of journalists. While it may have been the best covered event in the subject's life, several sources refer to the disappointment that there weren't any national network television reporters in attendance.
 * "They had a tier reserved especially for them... by the time the press took their seats, they were hopping mad. Not a good omen." - This understates the problem. It wasn't just the mix up of the passes - it also was the brutality of the World Peace Corps who shoved female journalists that got the press riled up, not to mention a laundry list of other complaints, such as the subject keeping journalists and followers waiting for hours on the Hobby Airport tarmac for his arrival, the failure to reveal a practical plan for world peace, the failure to give direct answers to questions, etc.
 * "Here as everywhere, Maharaji spoke from his heart, presented his message, and surprised everyone with unexpected answers to people's questions." - Does anyone else detect bias?
 * "From early on, Maharaji had been keenly aware of his mes­sage's controversial nature and had demonstrated a readiness to face detractors to ensure that the purity of his message was not compromised. " - This overlooks the fact that he walked out of the press conference when asked about the beating of Halley.
 * "One journalist said that a perfect master could not have got­ten an ulcer. Maharaji quickly set them straight by saying, "If an ulcer were the only sign of imperfection, then whoever doesn't have an ulcer must be perfect. Perfect is perfect. It has nothing to do with the body."" - "Set him straight"? This is a very selective transcript from what was apparently the last U.S. press conference the subject ever held.
 * "Three thousand locals and about 20,000 of Maharaji's students made up the audience, but it was clear that the attempts to draw new people from all over the United States had failed miserably. " - Credit for not sugar-coating it.
 * "Some said that the show lacked soul, while others called it one of Maharaji's great successes." If this were Wikipedia this sentence would be deleted with a laugh. I've read scores of sources that've written about the event and I don't recall anyone saying that it was one of the subject's great successes. Nor do I recall anyone saying that the problem with it was a lack of "soul". This is a serious mischaracterization of the criticisms of the event.
 * "In any case, the organization began to bleed financially when the "Western Peace Bomb" event was over." -Again, some credit for acknowledging the financial problem, but who called it the "Western Peace Bomb"?
 * "...the organization..." - Again, an unexplained refusal to name the Divine Light Mission.


 * Thanks, great summary. As for Rawat's speaking performance, I'll say that many such things are in the eye of the beholder – witness the sociologist we quote who couldn't believe that his companions "spoke glowingly about the message they'd received", when all he thought he had heard was tripe. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 22:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll have to re-check Kent and see what he says. But where does Cagan get her information from? Who are the "some" who said it lacked soul? Who are the "others" who called it one of his greatest successes? Listing a mix-up with press passes as being the sole reason for dissatisfaction among journalists with the event is a serious failure to properly characterize the coverage of the event. It's like saying that the peasants revolted in the French Revolution because there was confusion over the price of bread. That would be a fringe viewpoint. The viewpoint expressed in this book is so different from that in reliable sources that it appears to qualify as a fringe viewpoint. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, that kind of situation is common across religious divides. For example, outside descriptions of Islam in all but the best RS bear little resemblance to inside descriptions of it. Even more so with smaller groups like this one. I am not sure we can or should simply dismiss the inside view altogether. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 13:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the failure to name the DLM, there was a story today that reminded me of this matter:
 * "The agency name that dare not be spoken"
 * The name of the Central Intelligence Agency cannot be spoken in the war crimes trial here. No records of the agency's interrogations of Salim Ahmed Hamdan can be subpoenaed, and no agent can be called to testify about what he or she learned from Osama bin Laden's former driver. ... The tribunal's deputy chief prosecutor, Army Col. Bruce A. Pagel, couldn't say which agency sought the shield or what arguments were made to justify it. "It's a bit absurd to go through an entire trial pretending that the CIA doesn't exist," said Matt Pollard, a legal advisor for Amnesty International here to monitor the proceedings.
 * The DLM is like the CIA - an organization that can't be named for unspecified reasons.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For goodness sake, Will, your obsession with this subject is approaching the proportions of a disorder. The DLM was nothing like the CIA. The DLM was a bunch of unrepentant ex-hippies with delusions of grandeur sitting in an office somewhere. When they became too obstructive to Prem Rawat's purpose he started a new mini-organisation to bypass them. That was how DUO and WWA, among others, and no doubt TPRF and EV all got their starts. They were all "the organisation", as distinct from Prem Rawat's personal efforts. And you have been told before that Indian name spellings are more or less irrelevant. Please stop dragging this red herring over the spelling of Maharaji. And you are still trying to force negative reports onto the editors here as facts, viz the fact that he walked out of the press conference when asked about the beating of Halley. How do you know? Were you there? And do you honestly expect this sort of behaviour to result in a consensus? Rumiton (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rumiton, please don't characterize editor's motives or try to disparage their mental health. That's a personal attack.  Enough is enough. Thanks.  Sylviecyn (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The name of the "organization" is Divine Light Mission and its name was changed to Elan Vital. In both Denver and Miami Beach, DLM was known as "Divine Light Mission International Headquarters."  It was on it's letterhead.  Does Cagan mention that?  No. PIP was like writing a biography of Jim Jones and leaving out Peoples Temple and ignoring all sources.  If anyone wants to see what a real, professional, thoroughly-researched biography is, I highly recommend Raven: the Untold Story Of The Rev. Jim Jones and His People by Tim Reiterman with John Jacobs.  See Amazon.  I have a copy. Tim Reiterman, a reporter for The San Francisco Examiner was also one of the reporters that accompanied Congressman Ryan to Jonestown, and was also shot on the airstrip where Ryan was killed trying to escape Jonestown in Guyana.  In the Preface of Raven, Reiterman explains how he researched the book.  "...In most cases the two-source rule was applied; indeed in most cases more than two sources provided confirmation, or the confirmation was corroberated by Temple documentation.  In cases, when by necessity only a single source existed and the information seemed important, we relied upon documentation, other sources and/or our own accumulated knowledge to weigh our source's words and confirm or dismiss them..."  Raven has 30 pages of Notes and Sources.  Did Cagan use the two-source rule in PIP?  No.  Sylviecyn (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "...your obsession with this subject is approaching the proportions of a disorder." Is that really an appropriate remark? Are we now commenting on each others' mental health? As for the DLM, Rumiton's interpretation of PIP's omissions contradicts the contemporaneous account printed in a DLM newsletter:


 * So the subject was actively controlling the DLM in the West, and he formulated the plans for and then established the DUO. And again, there were strong connections between the DLM and Maharaj Ji- the DLM bought his planes, cars, and homes, and Maharaj Ji was the chief minister of the DLM and supreme editor in chief of the DLM magazine, among other roles. As for the name, I don't see where anyone ever spelled it the way Cagan does before 1980. So when she quotes people using the other form she is misquoting them. As for the news conference, it is well-covered by reliable sources, not including PIP. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * More of the same. If the DLM had been a satisfactory organisation, he would not have needed to start the sub-groups. Read your own quote, I think it is pretty clear. And Sylvie's comparison of Peace is Possible with the biography of a homicidal maniac is highly offensive, as is your immature comparison of DLM with the CIA. And enough with the name spelling, it's totally irrelevant. Rumiton (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was comparing the quality of the research done by the authors of both books, not the book subjects. I chose Raven to use as an example because it's probably the most intensively researched and well-documented biography I've ever read.  I'm sorry you misunderstood that.  And btw, could you please address me by my whole username, "Sylviecyn" in the future?  Thanks.  Sylviecyn (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rumiton, please remove your personal comment about "disorder". Negative personal comments like that don't belong in mediation or anywhere on Wikiepdia. Getting back to the matter, the subject was the spiritual and supreme head of the DLM for at least a decade, though you'd never know that from reading Cagan. He personally established the DUO, though Cagan makes no mention of it. He oversaw the change from the DLM to the EV, though again Cagan ignores that part of his life. The CIA and the DLM have one thing in common - both go unnamed for unexplained reasons when they are in fact central players in the relevant narratives. Why is it irrelevant to get facts right? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As I explained on my talkpage I am not inclined to remove this comment, but in the spirit of Wikipedic collegiality I am prepared to consider alternatives. I need a phrase to describe someone who is willing to spend months trolling the worst of the world's gutter press for insults to triumphantly present for inclusion in a Wikipedia article on a spiritual master who is well-regarded by millions. I am open to any suggestions, but "approaching a disorder" is a mild phrase that seems to cover the situation, even if inadequately. Rumiton (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am disappointed that you choose to use personal attacks in this manner. It isn't suitable for Steve's talk page, or for a topic under probation, or for any page on Wikipedia. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 15:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If the CIA goes unmentioned it would not be for "unexplained reasons" and it is pure deviousness to say so. The CIA is a powerful and feared organisation, and mentioning its name could result in much trouble for a reporter. You are clearly trying to create the same aura around Maharaji's organisations, the DLM/EV/DUO/WPC/TPRF. It does not on any account belong there. Rumiton (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The only comparison I'm drawing is between the unmentionability of DLM/DUO/EV and the unmentionability of an organization mentioned in the paper. It is odd to exclude an involved organization from a trial, and it is equally odd to exclude involved organizations from a biography. That's the end of the comparison. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 15:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * One valid point i see here is that Cagan did not interview apostates (or Ex-premies as few call, or former followers). This would not render her book one sided, as many other sources used here to criticize Mr. Rawat has not been published unbiased either. Its not worth a point, to discuss about credibility of facts in Cagan's book; specially when their are both positive and negative aspects discussed together (contrary to the articles written against him, which are completely biased and give tinge of libel)--Taxed123 (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How does only depicting one side of the issue not make the book one-sided? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Taxed, with the best of intentions I cannot understand what you are talking about. Can you rephrase please? Rumiton (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There are many articles which are biased towards hate content about Prem Rawat. Those articles/books were not written after permission from Mr. Rawat or people related to him. When we can use such sources to put content in Wikipedia, then what is exactly the problem with using PIP? I guess this question has been solved long ago, but people offended by the book want this controversy to go on and on.--Taxed123 (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Issue/Discussion topic E: history negligence
This discussion topic pertains to:
 * Divine Light Mission
 * Prem Rawat and User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal9 (Media)

An aspect currently not mentioned in Wikipedia's mainspace regards deliberate/indeliberate attempts by Rawat and/or related organisations to wipe traces of its early history.

The closest I could find from an undisputedly reliable source was:"Like several of other religious movements which were popular in the heady days of the 1960s and 1970s, Elan Vital has moved on from [its] origins. Originally the flamboyant and definitively Eastern-inspired Divine Light Mission, it has matured into something new, changing its name to reflect its current emphasis and approach and, presumably, to distance itself from the past." (bolding added) ..."presumably"... sounds rather hypothetical; ...distance itself from the past... is still quite different from "wiping traces". The harsher allegations are thus far by me only found in a source that needs RS status assessment for every instance where it is used:"(1) Around the mid-80s Rawat ordered all the movement's materials to be destroyed, including magazines and photos - materials where he promoted himself as a divine being. (2) Rawat prided himself to have gone under the radar of the press: at a speaking engagement in the late 80s he said what a great achievement it was that when newspapers published lists of cults, they no longer included him."

Relevant questions:
 * 1) Can we find more reliable sources on this?
 * 2) Can this, with the use of appropriate sources, be narrowed down to either Rawat or the related movements?

I'd be inclined to call an RFC on this here, but only if Steve doesn't mind the extra "media" attention that brings. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The request for comment would primarily be intended for those who have a clear view on available sources for Rawat, which might be still other people than the ones currently involved in the debates here. Note that, for example, a recent related AfD listing, after some initial negative prophesies, of late nonetheless succeeded in attracting comments from what I presume to be "outsiders". --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest here, I don't think an RFC would have much success. The three months I've been mediating this case have proven difficult, and one of the things I've learned is that no one really wants to get involved in the Prem Rawat related area, so I do think that an RFC wouldn't get the kind of input needed to help establish a consensus. I'm happy to give the RFC approach an idea, but I do think it's unlikely to have much success. I need some clarification though, would this RFC be on the use of the Register as a source? If so, please let me know. And in regards to the extra media attention, I've basically expected that it's inevitable, so there's not much I can really do about that now. Thanks, Steve Crossin   (contact)  11:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Tx for the reaction: well, no an "RFC on the use of the Register as a source" would usually be held at WP:RSN, and would then be some sort of follow-up on Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_4. My first attempt would be to see whether people can point to any other sources, hopefully either more outspoken than Barrett and/or of a less difficult to ascertain reliability than Cade Metz. Only if such searches would result in nothing, a third question could be attempted, someting in the vein of, Even if no other sources with some form of reliability can be found, would we mention anything about this in mainspace, either based on the less outspoken Barrett source (which technically could only be used in the Divine Light Mission article while it says nothing worth mentioning in a BLP), either on the less reliable Register which would probably require a reliability assessment for the given context? I'm distinctly trying to prevent jumping to a discussion of the reliability of The Register at this point in time, as such discussion might be completely redundant if there are other sources for this content, which we might be unaware of currently.
 * Hmm, that could possibly work. I think that something more like a Request for Input or something, as in, if anyone has any sources, then they can suggest their use. However, some discussion on whether the sources should be used or not will obviously occur, and I reserve the right to judge sources for myself, and if I feel really necessary, add my 2 cents on whether a source should be used, if I feel that source clearly violates a policy. Shortly said, if I feel necessary, I won't rule out saying that a certain source shouldn't be used. But I think such a request for input idea could be a good one. Steve Crossin   (contact)  13:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * From what I've read, there appears to have been a concerted effort to destroy materials from the early part of the subject's career. Even recently, officially-issued videos are occasionally recalled in order to make corrections. However I don't know that we have substantial sources covering this. IIRC, some of this issue was dealt with back when there were separate articles for Current teachings of Prem Rawat and Past teachings of Prem Rawat. Perhaps those article histories and talk pages can be mined for better sources. If not, this may have to wait until someone gets around to writing about it in a reliable source. While arguments can be made for using the Register as a source for some assertions, this would be outside their area of expertise and I don't think it would be sufficient for this issue.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Note of break

 * Just so you all know, I'm going on a Wikibreak. I'll come on once a day to check messages, and the status of the case, but for matters that need my imminent attention, [mailto:cro0016@gmail.com email me.] My advice would be to resume work on the proposals, as soon as possible. It's been effective so far, I think it still can be effective. Best, <font face="Monotype Corsiva" color="blue">Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 06:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Another note, me and my partner are going on vacation. There's more info on my userpage. Urgent matters can be forwarded to my email, but please note that we do need some time to refresh, and let release the stress that's been building up recently. I'll see you all when I return. Best, <font face="Monotype Corsiva" color="blue">Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 06:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And I've spoken to a mediator, asked them to keep an eye on these pages for now. They're rather experienced and I trust them completely. If you have an issue with this mediator, please email me, but I trust them completely, and in my absence trust that they are capable of keeping an eye on this case. Best, <font face="Monotype Corsiva" color="blue">Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 06:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe best to mention the ad interim additional mediator(s) in the template at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Prem Rawat? tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Reminder

 * I'd just like to remind you all, I am watching this page. That includes editorial conduct as well. If I spot a behaviour issue, or breaking of policy, I'll mention it to the editor/s. If there's a matter that you think needs addressing, email me. Post on my talk page. Don't take matters into your own hands. I check my email once every half hour or so, depending on the time. If you have a problem with another editor, discuss the matter with me. Please remember that I set down some basic rules when I took on this case, no personal attacks, incivility, edit warring, and having an open mind, and a willingness to compromise. Remember that this is my userspace, so please respect the basic standards of conduct that I've requested. <font face="Monotype Corsiva" color="blue">Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 09:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * BLP policy says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space". Will BeBack's saying in a discussion of the Halley beating - "The idea that Rawat can absolve himself of any responsibility for things done on his behalf, in his name, by his senior apostles is ridiculous" or "This idea that Rawat had no involvement with the people he lead and gave orders to, no responsibility for the actions of the church he led and that paid his bills, is absurd, IMO", is a clear suggestion that the beating was done  "on his behalf", "in his name" by a person he "gave orders to". It is a flagrant violation of BLP policy and libel .Momento (talk) 10:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * These comments are not libel if they are properly sourced. WP:BLP states that unsourced negative information about the subject can be removed instantly. These comments are cited to reliable sources, so are not libellous as far as Wikipedia is concerned. PeterSymonds (talk)  10:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If the only source is Rennie Davis' comments posted above, which were originally published in Penthouse magazine, then the comments are not properly sourced IMO to the extent that the comments imply that Rawat had "given an order", or that they were done "on his behalf" in any sense implying that he knew of the attack beforehand and directly or indirectly instructed or encouraged anyone to execute it. Davis is not asserting that. (That's before we come to the question of Penthouse as a reliable source.) Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 11:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And the policy is "Unsourced or poorly sourced".Momento (talk) 06:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

F?

 * Imho, the underlying (thus far unresolved) issue is the association/dissociation of Rawat and his followers and/or movement(s). I wrote about this here (it is a recurring theme commented about by many - I claim no exclusivity on the topic):
 * Re. "Don't you think Barrett is conflating the two?" - well you can't have it both ways: it's still very unclear to me how much Rawat associates himself with US DLM, later Elan Vital, and how much he dissociates himself from that organisation.
 * Authors deliberately or undeliberately conflating the two is not very helpful...
 * One of the very few examples of a source making the distinction between Rawat's approach and that of the practitioners that I could find: "Yet Guru Maharaj Ji's emphasis on giving up beliefs and concepts did not prevent premies from adopting a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity and the coming of a new age." (Downton - I'm not commenting on whether yes or no Downton puts the borderline in the right place here, I'm merely using this as an example of the type of distinction I'm looking for)
 * Anyway, unless we can see where the border is, that is: where Rawat's thoughts end, and where the movements and practitioners start to supply their own, we have to apply BLP-inspired caution:
 * Sources supplied by these movements and practioners are not to be treated as third-party sources in a WP:V way, unless it is very clear that they provide an approach independent from Rawat.
 * Where authors describe these movements and practitioners, on the other hand, these descriptions can not be taken for granted as being a description of Rawat, unless it is very clear that Rawat identifies with that aspect of the movement (so, you need a source saying the same about Rawat anyway).
 * "Having it both ways" is when one starts associating and dissociating Rawat with and from his followers based on content: a third party author says something nice about the movements, then interpreting as if something nice is said about Rawat, and conversely when such author says something less nice about the movements, then interpreting as if there's no link between Rawat and the movements. We have to apply the caution as explained above. Whether we, Wikipedians, think Barrett is conflating the two or not is irrelevant while that would be OR. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd propose this as discussion topic F, that is, if and when we're done with D and E. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the association/disassociation of the subject and his organizations is a problematic issue. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless I am mistaken, though, there is also the opposite way of having it "both ways". Two arguments against PIP have been –
 * PIP must be regarded as "a source supplied by the movement and its practitioners", and therefore it cannot be used as a third-party source about Rawat and his movements in the sense of WP:V.
 * PIP must not be considered a WP:SPS, because Rawat and TPRF have not published it themselves.


 * In essence, this amounts to saying that
 * it should be considered as "not self-published" if that supports the view that it should not be used, and
 * it should be considered as "self-published" when that supports the view that it should not be used.
 * Clearly, the logic is slightly awry here; these seem to be rationalisations of a-priori decisions, rather than arguments leading to such decisions – or, as I put it earlier, "arguing both ends against the middle."
 * In my view, the restrictions placed upon the use of PIP by WP:SELFANDQUEST are sufficient. They are quite comprehensive. Within them, it is fine to be used for the articles subject to this mediation. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 16:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think Francis's issue has to do with PIP. Rather it concerns the general issue across several articels of the extent to which the subject controlled the DLM/DUO/EV, etc, and the extent to which comments made about the movement or about him by various commentators can be appiled either way. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I know, it just occurred to me as I was reading what Francis wrote. I'll place a copy of my comment above, under D. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 19:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for Clarification

 * A note to all parties, I have initiated a request for clarification, it is listed here. <font face="Monotype Corsiva" color="blue">Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 02:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The page on which you orginally placed it, WP:RFAR, appears correct. WP:AE isn't normally used for clarifications of ArbCom decisions, from my experience. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I originally thought so, but after some discussion, I was advised that such a matter would be better suited to AE, and would likely get a quicker response at AE. I also thought about it, and I strongly feel that conduct matters in my userspace are for me to handle, either directly or indirectly. As I have said before, if I don't pick up on something myself, send me an email with a diff, or post on my talk page. Admittedly, I haven't been very active recently, as I've had some personal issues that I've been dealing with, and those issues are still an issue, but please don't think I've been deliberately ignoring the case, I'm just having some real life issues, and I'm trying to deal with them. But I'm always just an email away. <font face="Monotype Corsiva" color="blue">Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 03:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The original posting was a request for clarification, while the other post is an assertion of jurisdiction. Regardless of who has jurisdiction, the policy needs to be enforced. If working in a user's talk space means that incivility and personal attacks are tolerated then we need to move to another venue. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on AE. <font face="Monotype Corsiva" color="blue">Steve Crossin (talk) (contact page) 03:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is Steve's post concerning "request for clarification?" I can't find them on AE or RFAR.  Also, who is the replacement mediator going to be while Steve is away?  Can someone else answer in Steve's absence?  Thank you!  P.S.  Have a sweet holiday, Steve.  Don't worry about us, we'll be here when you return!  :):)  Sylviecyn (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's now resolved, but the discussion is at Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Upgrade to Formal Mediation?

 * I have received an email from a party requesting that the case be upgraded to formal mediation, with me continuing to mediate, and with an additional mediator from the committee co-mediating. I was wondering what the other parties thought? Best, Steve Public (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 1 Who specifically made the request?; 2) What are the reasons for the request?; 3) Which additional mediator?  4) What's the difference between informal and formal mediation?; 5) Did you change your username?  Who's "Steve Public?"  Thanks.  Sylviecyn (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) I think the party themself can disclose themselves that they made the request. As for your other questions,
 * 2) The party cited the largeness, contentiousness of this case, the case load that it has apparently put on myself, the benefit of having a more experienced mediator availible, the little progress that has been made, and the fact that some alternate mediation methods could help, and the fact that the case is rather formal already.
 * 3) As per the mediation policy, mediators select their own cases. I imagine that if there was an interested co-mediator, they would make themselves known at the appropriate time.
 * 4) Formal mediation, is well, formal. There are more common elements that are used in the mediation process, cases can only be mediated by members of the committee, though MedCom do make exceptions now and then, and the fact that formal mediation is privileged.
 * 5) This is my public account. I use this when I am at a public location, or an unsecured network. And the fact that we are still on holidays is a reason to use my public account, I am not at home, so not at a secured location.

Steve Public (talk) 11:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a final note, as I have always said, my email inbox is always open, so you can always email me. However, though I hadn't planned it before (I had planned it to be a total week off Wiki), there is no chance that I will be on the internet until the 9th, due to the regions that we will be in and the activities that we will be undertaking. I have my phone, so email should generally be availible, but I am unsure. Best, Steve Public (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not know who made the request to move the case to WP:MEDCOM, but will not object to the idea. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the request. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 12:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * One final note. It's rather possible/likely that MedCom may decide that a fresh mediator may be best, as in, a new mediator to take the case. It's really their decision. I guess I'll find out eventually. If that's the case, then so be it. I just want to say that its been a privilege mediating this case for so long, and if MedCom decides for me to continue with the case, I will be more than happy to. Steve Public (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't feel comfortable with this conversation and since mediators aren't emissaries, let the person themself make a formal request for formal mediation, so that there's something substantive to discuss. Otherwise, it's a conversation in the dark about speculating about speculations and unknown issues.  This can wait.  Sylviecyn (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I made the suggestion to Steve in an email last week. I gave four reasons why I thought it desirable:
 * 1) This is a complex and contentious issue that has evidently placed a strain on the mediator. 2) A second mediator, especially one with previous experience in Wikipedia mediation, would be helpful. 3) Considering the amount of effort everyone has put in we've made relatively little progress. Some additional mediation techniques could be helpful. 4) The mediation is fairly formal anyway.
 * I told Steve that I thought the MedCom would probably be open to having him as a provisional mediator while working with a regular member, but I have not had any contact with the MedCom about this. This suggestion is in no way a repudiation of Steve's mature handling of the mediation so far. We are much better off with his participation than without it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 14:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I support the proposal for an upgrade to formal mediation, though also am happy with Steve's mediation and for him to continue in the role. I see this as a huge, political and contentious mediation case, and am all for another experienced mediator(s) to contribute and support Steve. Savlonn (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info, Will. I also support formal mediation and echo Savlonn's sentiment to continue with Steve on board along with another mediator(s) for his support.  I've been pleased with Steve's approach and his willingness to handle this case.  Shall we wait until Steve returns from holiday?  That way he can actually be on his vacation without being so concerned with what's going on here.   :) Sylviecyn (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support proposal for Formal Mediation.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)