User talk:Steven Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Archive1

Issue/Discussion topic A
OK, leaping in joyfully here...in the article's "Following" section, the sentence "Outside the U.S., Paul Schnabel indicates a decreasing number of 150 DLM adherents, 15 of which living in a community setting, for Netherlands in 1980" is gibberish, but apparently informs us that there are only 150 adherents in the non-US world. If Schnabel is a reputable source (a pretty big "if") we need to know reliably what he wrote so he can be properly quoted. Rumiton (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Schnabel p. 53:


 * colspan = "2" | ... de voor Nederland relevante cijfers ... begin 1981 ...
 * colspan = "2" | ... numbers relevant for the Netherlands ... early 1981 ...
 * valign = "top" |1.
 * valign = "top" |Divine Light Mission - naar schatting hoogstens nog 150 aanhangers in Nederland, waarvan in 1980 ongeveer 15 in communaal verband leven. De beweging lijkt op zijn retour.
 * valign = "top" |1.
 * valign = "top" |Divine Light Mission - estimated at most 150 adherents remaining for the Netherlands, of which in 1980 approximately 15 lived in a community setting. The movement appears to be over the hill.
 * }
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * }
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Francis. This is rather different to what the article currently says. Are we to change the sandbox version here? Steve? It's getting a bit confusing. Rumiton (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, change this sandbox version, as it's not protected. Just look at the banner at the top first. :) Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  15:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Issue/Discussion topic B: buzzwords
A few terms and policies are being tossed around in these discusions without clear applicability.

The terms "tabloid" and "editorializing" are used in without clearly definitions. Recently, "tabloid" was used to both argue for adding material and for deleting it. It appears that any fact which editors want to suppress is tabloidism, and having too many, or too few, facts is "tabloidesque". "Editorializing" has been used to condemn the addition of unchallenged facts. These vague, undefined or misapplied terms are not helpful to the discussions. Rather than using buzzwords editors should explain their arguments clearly.

I'm also concerned about the frequent use of two policy links: WP:REDFLAG and WP:UNDUE. Both of these are used with little or no rationale. If an editor feels the need to resort to either of these policies I'd ask them to please give a full explanation of their reasoning, rather than just citing the link or posting the text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Rationale for WP:REDFLAG are provided in policy, in particular: reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;. This would apply, for example, to a controversial claim made by a person that first describes a living person as being an incarnation of God, only to reverse himself/herself after a dispute, by making another controversial claim such as being "materialistic and despicable" about the same person (!!!!).
 * "Editorializing" is the device used by some editors to reduce encyclopedic content to something more appropriate for an op-ed or a hatched job. This has been pervasive behavior by some editors.
 * WP:UNDUE has been used by all parties of the dispute. That has been an issue all along and that is why we are engaged in mediation: to find common ground. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I cannot see unclarity in these Wikipedia policies. They are well-written and extremely clear in their applicability. "Tabloidism" may be harder to define, but it is easy to recognise. "Encyclopedic" is similar. Read a British afternoon paper (just about any one) then go read the Brittanica. Et voila! Rumiton (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The dictionary defines "editorializing" as:
 * 1. To express an opinion in or as if in an editorial.
 * 2. To present an opinion in the guise of an objective report.
 * Jossi's definition appears to be his own. Reporting actual facts is not editorializing.
 * As for "tabloidism", if you can't define it then don't use it as an argument.
 * Regarding WP:UNDUE, if someone is claiming undue weight they should be able to explain why it applies and what "due weight" woulfd be. It doesn't bring us any closer to agreement for an editor to shout "WP:UNDUE!" without explanation.
 * Jossi's interpretation of WP:REDFLAG appears incorrect to me. It's intended to prevent editors from inserting fringe claims. Events and comments that are widely-reported no longer trigger that policy. For example, if a celebrity marries a woman and announces she's the sweetest thing ever but then three years later divorces her and says she's a bitch, and of both of these comments are widely-reported, then it's not an extraordinary claim even though he is contradicting himself. The second point about REDFLAG is that even if a claim is extraordinary, if it has highly-reliable sources then it is still acceptable. News reports by major news organizations are not fringe claims.
 * Again, the problem with each of these four is when editors use them as buzzwords without taking the time or energy to explain precisely what they're complaing about and how to fix it. I suggest we entirely stop using "editorializing" and "tabloid" as arguments. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that good philosophic points can degenerate into slogans, and we all need to work to prevent this happening. Rumiton (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Editorializing: To present an opinion in the guise of an objective report Exactly my point.
 * WP:REDFLAG is quite unambiguous about what it means and it is not only about fringe claims. In BLPs, WP:REDFLAG applies even more stringently. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * if a celebrity marries a woman and announces she's the sweetest thing ever but then three years later divorces her and says she's a bitch: Wikipedia is not a tabloid, Will, and in a BLP we will not reproduce such stuff whatsoever. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The point is that it wouldn't be an exceptional claim. To use a different example there could be a spokesman for a product who says it's great, but then later decides the product doesn't work and denounces it. If the facts are well-established then it isn't an exceptinal claim. That covers matters where someone is using poor sources to assert something that is otherwise contradictory to previously-known positions. That's not the case here. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion is not about a "product", it is about a living person. And as such, any sources that are proposed to be used need to clearly demonstrate its relevance to the person's notability. "She was a bitch" ain't. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * None of that has to do with WP:REDFLAG. Notability or relevance are not the issues, "exceptional claims" is the issue. The simple fact that someone changes their mind and adopts a position opposite to an earlier one is a common occurence. David Horowitz was once a liberal and now he's a conservative. That doesn't mean that reporting reporting on his conservative actions or writings is making claims that are exceptional. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a common occurrence that sources reduce their credibility by reversing their previous opinions. We have to ask, "Will he do this again?" Nothing to do with exceptionality, everything to do with reliability. Rumiton (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you arrive at that conclusion? I would agree with you if a source flip-flopped on issues, but if, after time, a source changed his opinion, I think it is quite reasonable to accept the fact that time and further reflection could change one's opinion. People who don't change their minds despite everything going on around them are usually called extremists. In that light, it is probably more reliable to have a source that has changed his mind on issues. Of course, each source would have to be examined individually. We don't want someone who simply has a sudden obvious grudge against the subject being used. If George Bush comes out 10 years from now and says "We shouldn't have gone into Iraq, the reasons we had were insufficient", would you label him less reliable now (now being 10 years from now), or less reliable now? I think, obviously, you'd say he was more reliable now. Granted, George Bush is never going to be a reliable source for anything, it's just a hypothetical. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 15:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As interesting this debate is becoming, we are simply going off-topic. We are speaking here of an exceptional claim of a person X that one year describe third party Z as an incarnation of God which he/she venerated profusely, only to later on describe person Z as a spiritually despicable, and worse. That is a massive WP:REDFLAG that has to be acknowledged when editing the article of person Z, in particular when person Z is a living person. If the article was about person X, and the person changed his mind on a topic, that would be a very different story. For example, a politician's article can present prior and newer/competing viwepoints of the politician, and that would be perfectly OK. This is clearly not the case here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

<< If it were clear we wouldn't be having this discussion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What? Care to explain what do you mean by that? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I contend you are making your own idiosyncratic definition of REDFLAG. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see this and act on it. Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  21:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've posted a request for clarification, Wikipedia talk:Verifiability ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The initial response, from Brimba, confirms my interpretation of REDFLAG. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it does not, as you have missed to explain the exact circumstances and the context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see how I left out anything important. You're welcome to go there and add whatever circumstances and context you think will give a different answer. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the important thing that was left out is the question of the testimony of NRM apostates. This is not just a "change of heart" it is a radical reversal of things they previously held dearest, a total emotional flip-flop which brings their intellectual stability into question. This [] is pretty interesting on the subject. Rumiton (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess this is now long disposed of but it's worth noting that Rumiton's link is to a text first published in Scientology's Freedom Magazine in an article titled | Fuel for Injustice - an interesting source, but perhaps not helpful on NPOV terms.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Leaving a new religious movement does not make one mentally unstable. But I can see why current followers would like to believe that. Zappaz even wrote the bio of Kliever. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Extremely offensive, Will. Extremely! And a strawman argument, nobody said anything of the kind. If you can't have a neutral point of view, at least pretend to. Rumiton (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So it appears that the view on the WT:V thread is that Jossi's interpretation of WP:REDFLAG is incorrect. Moving forward, let's avoid using that interpretation. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion

 * After reading this discussion, it seems clear there is an impasse here. Parties have shown that they are unlikely to budge on their position, and thinking about it, it seems clear that the current dispute is actually not regarding the wording of the final sentence of the lead section, it's a dispute over which sources should or should not be used. I can see no outcome that would end well here, and in my judgment, I think the best course of action is to continue on with the current proposal, and to discuss the sources used when proposals are written. I feel that's the best course of action here. Steve Crossin   (contact)  15:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Steve, I disagree. I'm not sure which "current proposal" you're talking about. This discusion wasn't about any particular proposal. The next issue to address here is how and where to handle the issue of the subject's lifestyle. It's better to discuss and get a general consensus on that before making a specific proposal about the exact text to add. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Specifically, this was related to the discussion on Proposal 4, specifically, Proponents of Rawat have credited him with helping them find inner peace while criticisms have referred to a lack of intellectual depth in his teachings[64] and an opulent, materialistic lifestyle.[56]. Observing this discussion, I see the best way forward for proposals to be written, and then discussed depending on the sources, and the context that they are used in. Watching this discussion, which there has been a lot of, I haven't seen any room for compromise here, Jossi has made their viewpoint clear, as have you and other editors made your points clear. This is based on my observations of this discussion, and I feel that the best way forward, would indeed be to continue weorking on Proposal 4, as the section header says, this Issue/Discussion topic is on "Opulent/Sumptuous lifestyle", clearly related to Proposal 4. So continue to work on the proposals, as they have proved to be successful so far, and we can go from there. Steve Crossin   (contact)  17:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was a part of the discussion. But we never had the chance to et to the meat of the discussion, which is: how shall we address the issues of Rawat's lifestyle and possessions in the body of the article. The main issue there, which can't be easily resolved in the proposal process, is whether to handle it chronologically (presumably when the criticims are made), in the reception section, or in a third place. We don't have an answer for that, and until we do it's not practical to make a proposal of specific text. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Steve, unfortunately you just created a major problem when you wrote "Jossi has made their viewpoint clear". There is only one viewpoint that Jossi can make clear, and that is Jossi's. I have disagreed with him on many occasions, large and small, and 3 other so-called "pro-Rawat" editors I have asked to go away until they learn to edit properly. Your statement, if it truly represents your opinion, suggests a degree of bias that would make it impossible for you to continue as mediator of this article. "Tell me it ain't true." Rumiton (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, perhaps that statement was unclear, so let me clarify it. Editors here are divided on this issue, and editors have made their viewpoints very clear. Jossi, as well as other editors, have made their view clear. My statement was not intended to give the view that I agree with, or hold Jossi's opinion, above others, or whether I favour any opinion of one party over another. This was merely an observation, and I admit I could have worded it better. I don't favour any parties view here, I really just want the progress with the proposals to continue, I think we can agree that they have helped progress the mediation so far. Apologies if it looked like I was favouring a viewpoint of one editor over another, this isn't the case. Steve Crossin   (contact)  15:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I see how it happened. The peculiar English usage of the personal pronoun in the plural to indicate politeness. We will speak of it no more. Rumiton (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, I'm glad that issue is settled. Steve Crossin   (contact)  15:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the issues of personal wealth, I think the vital thing is context. The jeering quotes from the 70s press do not provide it, (they were talking to the lowest common denominator, which in those days was very low indeed) but with hindsight, we can. First, there is the Sant Mat tradition of treating the guru as an embodiment of the divine, including an elevated level of personal wealth. Second, there is the fact that renunciation was never a requirement for receiving Knowledge (though it was for those who chose to live in an ashram.) There are plenty of quotes to pick from Prem Rawat to the effect that he believes neither wealth nor poverty affect inner experience. Rumiton (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Now we're getting somewhere. OK, we do have sources about the tradition of keeping a guru in luxury, as well as sources that say Rawat's father was wealthy. We hav a variety of quotes, and can find more, from Rawat addressing the issues of his own wealth and possessions, as well as less relevant quotes on wealth in general. We have scholarly and journalistic sources that describe, circa mid-1970s, some of the possessions that Rawat had accumulated. Finally, we have the direct condemnations of the wealth. Based on the number and volume of sources discussing the issue, it clearly deserve substantial weight in the article. I'd guess it would be one long paragraph. Where to put it? Since most of the attention Rawar received was from about 1972 to 1982, and since virtually every source is from that period, it makes some sense to put it in the chronological section of the bio. The jets were acquired later, so they may require a line in a subsequent section if we can find good sources for them. Any objections to that plan? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Objections? Sure. (a) I do not see this to need "substantial weight in the article"; (b) Quotes from primary sources should not be used; (c) many of the journalistic sources that have been provided are dubious in their appropriateness for this article; ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A) The matter has received substantial attention. The list of sources covering it compiled below isn't even exhaustive. "A long paragraph" was just an estimate for what it will take to summarize the sources, it could be more or less than that.
 * B) None of the sources listed are primary sources. Newspapers are secondary sources.
 * C) There many be some sources that are worse than others. Jossi has already said that we shouldn't get into discussing sources until we have text and can see how the sources are used. None of the sources are off the table.
 * D) Does anyone object to putting this into the 1970s chronology, rather than the "reception" section or elsewhere? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of this material should go in the "Reception" section under criticism from Christian clergy. And we can't ignore the criticism about his diet, weight, skin, voice, childish games etc - all of which are well reported.Momento (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Momento, what does this material have to do with criticism from Christian clergy? As for your second comment are your serious or are you being facetious? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Pilarzyk (1978) indicates "youth culture [mostly] from a decidedly leftist political ideology" as a source for these types of criticism. Precisely why the list of sources below is useful. Debunks unfounded POV-pushing à la "should go [...] under criticism from Christian clergy."
 * If you want to make contributions to the content of the "Reception" section /Proposal6 would be the appropriate place. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Francis. I didn't even know there was a Proposal 6, I've put it on my watchlist. Good point about the leftists, the comments should be attributed to them.Momento (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Francis is misreading Pilarzyk, who says: The youth culture's response to the DLM was somewhat ambiguous, combining indifference with some instances of overt hostility. Its most visible response came from media accounts by youth culture publications.2 Most of these responses were made from a decidedly leftist political ideology. Such criticisms usually focused upon the alleged phoniness of the "blissed-out premies" (followers of the guru), the "hocuspocus" aspects of the meditation, and the "materialistic fixations" and the physical condition of the guru (Reed, 1973; Kelley, 1974; Levine, 1974; Baxter, 1974). These accounts commonly pondered the authenticity of conversions of past politicalactivists who became premies. Others questioned the use of movement funds (Kelley, 1974. Morgan, 1973).
 * It appears to me he's saying that among the youth culture's responses the overtly negative ones came from a leftist ideology, not that all criticisms of this type came from youth culture. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

-> Neither did I imply that. I'm careful with my words: I said [Pilarzyk indicates youth culture mostly from etc] as "a" source (and that's what he does...). Momento's novelty of switching the "exclusive Catholic clergy origin" POV he's been proclaiming for as long as I can tell without a blink of an eye to exclusively "leftists" as those whom it should *all* be attributed to shows his methods, not mine.

There's a broad base for the contention regarding Rawat's all but frugal lifestyle, ranging from Dutch sociologists teaching at a Catholic university, to US leftist underground press throwing pies. And the mainstream US press (NYT, TIME, Newsweek, NYRB,...). And Dutch somewhat leftist theology students (Haan, not even listed below), and 21st century secondary and tertiary sources in English, and whatnot. And secondary sources covering press reports about the "materialistic fixations" and the physical condition of the guru. More than enough coverage from a variety of sources including a "truckload" reliable ones, to consider comments on Rawat's broad lifestyle a viable topic for the lead section of the article, imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We are already including a sentence about the descriptions of "materialistic" in the lead. We are also considering including aspects related to his youth. What else is needed in the lead? Descriptions from pornographic, glamour magazines that called him "fat" (or worse(? Forget it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Momento is the one who's proposing adding material on Rawat's physical condition, etc. I think that simply referring to criticism of the "luxurious" lifestyle is sufficient for the intro. The current question is what to include in the body of the article, and where to put it. I propose we put it in the currently-titled "Coming of age" section, where we already discuss the Malibu house. Momento seems to want it somewhere in the "Reception" section, but it isn't just about the criticism of his wealth, it's about the facts of his wealth. I'd rather keep the critical viewpoints to a minimum and stick to the simple facts as much as possible. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Adding physical condition in derogatory way, of a living person is certainly not a wiki way. I agree with jossi --Taxed123 (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, but I think I can see what Momento is getting at. If you look at criticism aimed at western spiritual leaders, eg recent Catholic Popes, you see things like "They didn't meet with the Dalai Lama," "They failed to acknowledge the claims of the Eastern Church," "They tried to ignore the clergy abuse crisis." Intelligent and valid stuff with two sides to it, nothing about "They wore silk robes," "They lived in palaces," "They travelled by personal jet," "They were overweight." This is the stuff that passes for criticism of Prem Rawat. The issues are rightly classed as insults, and rather petty ones. If any one of them (wealth) is significant, maybe they all are. Rumiton (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not for us to judge which criticisms are reasonable and which are not. If anyone thinks the Catholic Church has never been criticized for the opulent style that its top clergy indulge in then its obvious they've never studied its history. This is widely reported material, discussed by both journalists and scholars. It'd be a failure of NPOV to omit it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Show me where this is present on Pope ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The closer analogy is OSHO. See OSHO. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See also Pope Benedict XVI. But let's focus on this topic, shall we? Based on the lack of any reasoned arguments to the contrary, the "Coming of age" section appears to be the best place to cover this issue. I'll draft a proposal for a paragraph to be placed there. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Attire section you allude to above is almost entirely praising, and the small hints of criticism are refuted at length by pro-papal sources. The effect is vastly different from the one you constantly try to create here. And if you really believe that "It's not for us to judge which criticisms are reasonable and which are not" then all the criticisms should go in; youth, appearance, wealth, weight and so on. I shall add them to a new section. Rumiton (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked you once in the last 24 hours to stop making uncivil remarks, and now you're coming close to making another. Comment on the edits, not the editors. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, I do not see any such personal attack in that comment. It may be challenging your editing pattern, and that is entirely appropriate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I said the assertion is close to being uncivil. Your opinion is noted. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * See User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal7. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 12:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you seriously suggesting we should list all the car models Rawat owned? We don't even do that for rap stars, reliable sources attesting to Ferraris etc. notwithstanding. And we do mention that donations enabled him to live the lifestyle of a millionaire. He is not notable for being a car collector. Jayen 466 21:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. Could you please join the discussion at User Talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal7? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rawat is indeed notable for being a car owner, based on a review of the coverage of him and his cars. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is ridiculous. PR is not notable for that, sure, some newspaper a porno magazine and a glamour magazine wrote about it, so what? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How many newspaper and magazine articles about him from the 1970s omit mention of the cars? Very, very few, by my reckoning. It is an element of his notability and his public image - the boy guru with the Rolls Royces. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If he were not notable for his insight into personal peace, nobody would take any interest in the car collection he once apparently had. That is the subject this article needs to be centered on, everything else is entirely peripheral. Rumiton (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The subject is not notable for his "insight into personal peace". He's notable for having a following that believes in his "insight into personal peace". A following that, among other things, indulges his taste in expensive cars. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

'' Copied from article talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)''
 * Will, just to review the existing mentions of his luxurious lifestyle, we have:
 * "sumptuous lifestyle" in the lede,
 * "jewelry and wristwatches worth an estimated total of US$27,000 to $80,000"
 * "contributions from his Western devotees, which made it possible for him to follow the lifestyle of an American millionaire"
 * "the property,[63] which by 1998 was valued at $15 million"
 * "critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers"
 * "fat 15-year-old with pie in his face ... and a Rolls-Royce ... who was arrested for jewel smuggling"
 * "money was increasingly diverted to Rawat's personal use"
 * Many if not all of these have been implemented with consensus. I appreciate that there may be a POV that basically assumes that Rawat has defrauded people by making false promises, and that he has lined his own pockets with their money. However, I would not like to see this POV – and that is what it is – take over this article. The fact is that many people have had an experience through contact with his teachings that they feel grateful for, and that they feel adequately recompensed by their meditative experience which has changed the quality of their lives in a way that they feel is profound. Now, I quite like P. Diddy, though I have never bought one of his records. But if millions of people do, and feel enriched by his music, and he is worth half a billion dollars as a result, that is fine and dandy by me. I don't expect his Wikipedia article to inform me as to what model toilet he has installed in his home, based on his ill-gotten gains from music that serves to corrupt our youth, that he refused to eat from polystyrene plates at the BBC, or that the Daily Mirror reported that Veuve Cliquot isn't good enough for him. If I thought he was a shallow, immoral gangster, and my objective was to characterise him as a despicable human being, I could gather all this sort of tabloid ad-hominem gossip together and put it under "Criticism" in his article, arguing that it has all been reported by "reliable sources", and forget all about the fact that he is an artist. The same with this dude here – AFAICS, he is first and foremost a teacher of meditation. Not everyone's bag, doesn't have to be, just like P. Diddy's music, but both arguably have enriched a lot of people's lives. I would like to see a fair article for this subject. Jayen 466 22:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The topic is discussed in various aspects because various aspects are notable. We're just reflecting the viewpoints expressed in reliable sources. There is an enormous difference between the P. Diddy of the 2000s and the Guru Maharaj Ji of the 1970s so the comparisons don't really hold. Rawat's teachings are covered in a separate article. His various organizations are covered in three or more articles. The biography isn't about his teachings, his following, or his organizations - it's about the person. The person was detained for a customs and tax investigation. The person accumulated several of the most expensive cars on the market while still a teenager. The person had a stroing of expensive private ariplanes. The person had expensive homes in several cities. These are among the details reported about the person. As for criticism, editors here have been of different minds. Some editors have said that listing the expensive assets isn't a criticism, it's just a description, and I tend to agree. They are unusual, and worthy of note, just like we note that the Pope is the ruler of a country and inhabits an ornate palace. There is nothing unfair about summarizing the most commonly reported facts about a subject. It'd be a bizarre omission if we didn't mention OSHO's Rolls Royces, and it's equally inappropriate to omit Maharaj Ji's Rolls Royces and other cars, as they were part of his public image in his heyday. Fair treatment is afforded by following NPOV, and by including all significant points of view. NPOV, and fair treatment, require that we summarize the material so frequently mentioned in newspapers, magazines and books, the same media that made the subject notable. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I must add further differences between P. Diddy and the subject. Sean Combs makes the bulk of his income from selling tangible goods, CDs or clothes. People don't look to him as their lord, and he doesn't ask for complete obedience. Sean Combs never asked people to turn over their fortunes to live in houses devoted to obeying his teachings. The relationship between guru and follower, and between rock star and fan, are significantly different. It's practically offensive, in my opinion, to even compare them in this way. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So, that is the issue? Finally I and others can get to understand where you are coming from. I can now appreciate that you may have a certain bias as it relates to the Guru-shishya tradition, and while you are entitled to your biases and opinions (as we all do), our arguments should not be based on these biases and or opinions. (FYI, PR never asked anyone to turn "their fortunes"). In reading Jaen's comments about what we have in the article already, I see no need to add anything more, that material covers the substance of what is needed in an encyclopedic article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So that's the issue? Finally, I and others can understand where you are coming from. You think there is no difference between PR and a rockstar? I agree with Will, that is an offensive comparison. After all this time, if you are only now coming to grips with the problems many people have with Prem Rawat's ideas, well, it certainly explains why there's been so much time wasted before now editing these articles, you simply didn't understand the issues. Hopefully, this has cleared things up and we can look forward to great progress in the near future. As for your suggestion that Prem Rawat never asked anyone to turn their fortunes, that's just wrong. Downton, p. 170 "people were encouraged to invest and sacrifice...and to give in any way they could...it was common in 1971-72 for Mahatmas to encourage personal offerings, by way of donations of money and valuables". Please don't waste our time with the "Mahatmas said it, not PR" argument again, unless that's really the best you can do. Can you honestly sit there and tell people that PR expected complete obedience and encouraged donations of all they could, but didn't think people would give up "their fortunes"?? You can't have it both ways, no matter how much you'd like to. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 14:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Maelefique and welcome back. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks, but I never left, my job isn't to sit here and do PR for PR. I've been paying attention, but time constraints have been limiting my time spent on this project and I didn't feel the need to say anything until your  comments above. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 17:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what Joosi means by a "certain bias". I'd like him to explain what this purported bias is. As for turning over fortunes, there are numerous sources that talk of people turning in their trust funds and inheritances. More to the point the application to join an ashram was apparently four pages long - two of the pages devoted to disclosing financial information. Once disclosed, would-be members were pressured to turn over their assets before they could join. Members were pressured to take out personal loans in order to turn the money over to the movement. As for Jossi seeing no need to add anything more to the article, he's been saying that since 2004 so I don't think he's a good judge of the quality of the article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How many people who accepted PR as their teacher joined ashrams and how many did not? Was joining an ashram compulsory, or voluntary? What are these "numerous sources"? Answer these questions and you will understand the lack of grounding for your argument. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And I have not been saying "since 2004 not to add anything more to the article". That is just undeserving of a counter argument. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you really want answers to those questions? Do you really not know already? (seems to me they are/were in the articles already, you should read them!) And do you really think that compulsory or voluntary is a non-biased question? Cults and NRM's often exert a force of will on their members, which is later used to deny the actions of the group as completely voluntary from their members, this is grade 8 stuff, come on. Or did you want to deny PR had any charisma as well, and ask what are "numerous sources" for that too? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 19:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * yes, sure, brainwashing, coercion, blah blah blah. Read DIMPAC and read whhat scientists say about these theories. You can also read this excellent book: The Politics of Religious Apostasy≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ONCE A FOLLOWER receives knowledge, he can ask to join an ashram — typically a big old house with sparkling windows, picnic benches in the dining room, a "satsang" room, shared chores and crowded bedrooms. The devotee fills out an application for "personnel" with much more detail than the usual employment application. Besides questions about skills, education and arrests, two of the application's four pages ask for minute financial information, such as conditions attached to any trust funds, obligations on cash value of insurance policies, assets and mortgages.
 * "The guru who minds his mother", By MALCOLM N. CARTER, AP. 11/4/73
 * I don't recall ever reading about P.Diddy setting up ashrams and requesting detailed financial information from his fans. Perhaps someone can find a source for that. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Garson said one method used to balance the budget is asking rich premies — those who have recently become devotees — for donations preferably their entire savings. He said one woman, Darby McNeal of Canada and her $400,000 trust fund, is a good example of that. "Bob Mishler, the mission's executive director, talked Darby into signing over power of attorney shortly after she joined," said Garson, who says he was instructed to collect the money for the mission. According to Garson, the mission has been given several trust funds and several families, ineluding Miss McNeal's, are contesting the action.
 * "Growing Pile of Unpaid Bills Beneath Guru's Spiritual Bliss", Deborah Frazier, Denver (UPI) 3/23/75
 * Does anyone have a source for P.Diddy's manager talking fans into signing their trust funds over to the singer? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But there are only a handful here today, largely because a memo has been circulated directing all premies to look for jobs during the Christmas season in order to make up the organization's considerable debt. In normal times the DLM's $250,000 monthly operating budget is met through gifts from wealthy premies (at least one premie has donated a trust fund of over $100,000), the income from ten Divine Sales rummage stores across the country and several other small businesses ("Happy People Make Good Workers," reads the advertising handout for Divine Painters, Inc.) and the salaries of the 1200 premies who live in ashrams, most of whom hold outside jobs and must hand over their paychecks to the Mission. However, the expense of putting on Millennium has left the Divine Light Mission several hundred thousand dollars in the hole (aside from the $75,000 Astrodome rental fee, DLM officials refuse to divulge the costs of the event), necessitating the emergency measure.
 * "When The Lord of All The Universe Played Houston", Rolling Stone, March 14, 1974
 * Does P. Diddy ask his fans to take on extra jobs when he's short on cash? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So what? Some people joined the ashrams in the US. So what? some people gave large donations. So what? Nonsensical bias. Diddy sales CDs. PR sells nothing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Will wrote, Rawat's teachings are covered in a separate article. His various organizations are covered in three or more articles. These are, as I understand it, break-out articles created to treat these topics in further depth, and from additional angles. But, as the source of Rawat's notability, they should still feature prominently in the article on Rawat himself, with a template referring the reader to the more detailed articles.
 * The person was detained for a customs and tax investigation. It is excusable for a newspaper to report this, and not to report that he was subsequently cleared, and an apology issued to him by the Indian government. As Wikipedia editors, however, I believe we should not mention the former without the latter.
 * It'd be a bizarre omission if we didn't mention OSHO's Rolls Royces, and it's equally inappropriate to omit Maharaj Ji's Rolls Royces and other cars, as they were part of his public image in his heyday. I think the cases are slightly different. First, Osho's was a world record-breaking collection, unlike Rawat's, which was pretty standard for an American celebrity. Secondly, Osho made a point of having publicity pictures of his absurdly large fleet of Rolls Royces sent out to the press; he claimed, on the record, that he deliberately used them to get a rise out of people. Hence you'll find references to them in practically all scholarly accounts. As for Rawat, I believe he had no interest in talking about his cars and did not ascribe any role to them in his teachings; it was the press that was interested in his private wealth, scholars rather less so. I don't mind the article saying somewhere that there was considerable media interest in his wealth, and his collection of luxury vehicles. Perhaps some scholarly source can be found that has mentioned it. But there is a difference between summarising the press POV and writing our article from that POV.
 * Now, as for P. Diddy, the link posted above, based on a Daily Mirror story IIRC, states:Now, $500,000 and $150,000 “expenses” for attending one’s own party, all of which is paid for by someone else, ain’t bad for one night either, is it?
 * It's practically offensive, in my opinion, to even compare them in this way. No offence intended. In my view, both have a lifestyle product that people are free to "buy", or not. We are not here to condemn either of them, just write an encyclopedia.
 * Most religious movements, and their leaders, live off members’ contributions of one sort or another. Scientology charges people hundreds of thousands of pounds to progress up the bridge to freedom. It is still recognised as a religion in a great many countries, including the U.S., who castigate dissenting nations in the name of religious freedom if they dare imply that it is just an abusive business. The reason is respect for Scientologists’ religious beliefs, and the guarantee of the freedom to espouse religious beliefs that other people may find silly. These are freedoms that have not come easily. Lest we forget, the Catholic Church, for centuries, levied a lifelong tithe from each member of the population, without any element of choice; as a citizen of a Christian country, you had to pay whether you were a Christian or not, and if you were a heretic, you risked being burned at the stake. In some muslim countries apostasy is still punishable by death. I believe religious freedom, and the freedom to not believe, are preferable to those scenarios.
 * Lastly, the cite to The Guru Who Minds His Mother appears wrong; I’ve read the article and cannot find that passage in it. The article quoting Garson also quotes him as saying that I seem to remember the fact that the ashrams were operated at a loss to the DLM came up before in our discussions. From that POV, the suggestion that people get jobs to help pay for their own upkeep does not sound all that unreasonable to me. -- Jayen 466 00:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OT (I lived in an ashram for several years in Israel, and we hardly had enough $$ to cover our own costs, as many people did not hold any well paying jobs... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC))


 * I don't know why this comparison between Sean Combs and Prem Rawat is being pursued. The financial relationships between a singer and his promoters, agents, and fans, and between a guru and his followers are simply not comparable.
 * Different people are notable for different things. Churchill and Eisenhower were both painters, yet less space is devoted to painting in their bios than in the bios of their contemporaries Picasso and Pollack. On the other hand, there is relatively little in the artists' biographies about their political or military activities. Eisenhower is notable as a general and a president, not as a painter. It's not for us to second-guess history and say that his painting is where the article should focus. Rawat is notable because he was noted, and he was noted among other things for having a fleet of the most expensive cars while still a teenager.
 * Conflicts over religious asceticism versus opulence go back at least to the Reformation. Obviously the subject was a notable example of the spread of Indian religious traditions into the West in the 1970s. One of those traditions was the luxurious support of the guru. Many westerners thought that a holy man (boy) riding in a luxury limousine was unusual enough to report about. All we can do is summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.
 * Cars played an important part in the subject's spiritual expressions in the 1970s. Many sources dwell on the way in which he would use automobile-related analogies in his satsangs. It was explained by supporters that he was using the vernacular metaphors of his time, just as Jesus spoke about fishing and nets. So this isn't just about finances, it's also information relevant to his spiritual beliefs.
 * The cars are not just "pieces of tin". The period of the mid-1970s saw a burdensome debt on the DLM, the subject's movement in the U.S. At the same time that it was still owing money from the Millennium festival it bought a car for "ceremonial purposes" that cost a $22,000 (over $100,000 in 2007 dollars). The movement thought that buying another luxury car was a priority. It's not an indictment of the subject, it's a description of the history of the man and his movement. That's what biography is all about.
 * To recap: the subject was reported in many newspaper articles to have a fleet of luxury cars. The subject was asked about the cars over and over by the press. The subject referred to cars in his own spiritual talks. The purchase and registration of the cars was a subject of investigation by the IRS and State of Colorado. I'd further note that we aren't mentioning lesser indulgences, like gold watches, quadrophonic stereo equipment, clothes, and food. This is focused on only the most significant assertions. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, then let us have one strong, solid, unmissable reference to the fact that he was and is wealthy, that he had a Rolls Royce and other luxury vehicles at his disposal, that the media were very interested in that, and be done with it. We could expand the millionaire lifestyle sentence, appending a corresponding mention. Or better still, let's have a "Media" section in Reception and outline the main points of focus of media reporting. But please no listings of half a dozen car makes and models! :-)
 * Generally, what an encyclopedic BLP should be about is not primarily determined by what newspapers have reported. Scholarly treatments have a clear priority anchored in policy. Jayen 466 13:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Heresy to some, Jayen, but I for one concur entirely. :-) Rumiton (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break (Guru Puja)
<<< "GURU PUJA" by Mahatma Umesh Dhar in THE GOLDEN AGE No. 9, July 6 - 27, 1974, p. 4 (this source is however in DLM context - and the URL, well, um, not OK RS-wise but it's all I've got) --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And though my mentioning this has never affected things before, and though it might be hard to understand in 2008, the Indian ashram system was (still is in India) a celebate, renunciate lifestyle of choice. If you wanted to be there, you gave up your money. The money people had on entry, and might have earned while there, went towards keeping the whole system going. And the ashrams on the whole lost money. Rumiton (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rumiton - can you clarify? Are you saying that there are followers of the subject living in ashrams devoted to him in India? Also, you'd earlier said that this material needs context, including mention of a tradition of supporting gurus in luxury. I can't find the source for that, though I recall seeing it before. Can you find the source for that? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There certainly are. The ashram lifestyle remains highly respected in India, for all its unsuitability in the west. I know of at least two very large ashrams, each covering, I think, hundreds of acres. I attended an event held at one of them some years ago, attended by around 250 000 people, and since then there have been larger. The Indian DLM, or RVK, does not go in for public statements in English very much, so I don't know how these figures could be confirmed. I think the article has always been misleading in its implication that the Indian side of things died out when his mother took control of the Indian DLM, though I do not know exactly how things developed there. In Indian history it is considered that the best rulers were kings that were also high devotees or spiritual masters. King Ashok was the model. It is considered the ideal form of government. Rumiton (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We should find a way of expressing that better in one or another article. Also, do you recall the source that discusses a tradition of supporting gurus in luxury? You mentioned it earlier in this thread. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It comes under Guru Puja, treating the guru as a manifestation of god and making offerings to him/her to sponsor humility and spiritual insight. Offerings are proportional to the amount of wealth the devotee (student) has, so a rich student might well offer a house or luxury car, a poor student perhaps a flower or piece of fruit. And as I said, the idea that spiritual leaders should never be wealthy or powerful is almost purely western; in India wealth in the hands of the enlightened is considered the best place for it to be. Rumiton (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought, but I can't find any source for it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, as you say, primary and unacceptable here for a host of reasons, but not unrepresentative. The mahatma is expressing the traditional Indian view regarding sants, here translated with the false cognate saints. Rumiton (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are usable, they just require special care and shouldn't be interpreted. However I recall a scholarly paper on the support of gurus, perhaps in the Sant Mat tradition. Do you Have any idea about that, Rumiton? When you mentioned the idea previously, what were you thinking about? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Will is correct. I don't know why this comparison with a singer is being used. I find it quite odd that when PR was compared to some inspirational speakers there was mild outrage at the comparison, but being compared to a peer of Brittany Spears isn't generating any indignation at all. Will is also correct that PR's use of wealth has been a fairly major issue in his publicity/notoriety and that should be clear in the record. I do not believe that one sentence to the effect of "the media reported he had expensive cars" suffieciently addresses that issue. Especially given the financial woes suffered by many followers, and what seems to be a subsequent lack of help from PR and his organisations. On the other hand, I would agree that we do not need a make and model break-down of cars, unless they are much more exclusive than just Rolls, Bentley, etc. Ie, if Enzo Ferrari had presented him with a unique model, or something like that (I'm not saying that happened). -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 15:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The draft text is being discussed at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal7. Regarding Jayen's question about the quote from the Carter AP article, I copied the text straight off the page. I'd be happy to send it to anyone who emails me a request. As for scholars, no scholar has written a biography of the subject. At most they include brief biographic sketches as background for their discussion of whatever aspect of the subject or his movement that they're discussing. The only hiqh quality, 3rd-party biography that I'm aware of is the Current Biography Yearbook, 1974. It's excellent and I recommend it to anyone interested in this topic. It devoptes more space to the issue then anyone is proposing to do here. As for the particular cars, details are what make biographies interesting. The makes of cars were specifically mentioned in numerous sources, and some particualr makes were mentioend again and again. It's only those most frequnetly mentioend that are in the proposal. The only particular model of note is the Mercedes-Benz 600, an enormous limousine produced in limited numbers and used by heads of state. Simply saying that he owned expensive cars would not properly express the matter. The proposal is not limited to mentioning his cars though. It brings together material already in the article elsewhere, such as the criticism of his lifestyle from his mother and others, his planes and his pilots license. It would be incorrect to put this in a "media" section, because it wasn't just the media who commented on the matter. Please re-read the sources section below, particularly the later citations which are mostly from scholars, and you'll see that this was an issue that reverberated widely. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Re the Carter article, just to be sure we are talking about the same thing: the title is "The guru who minds his mother", the quote is "ONCE A FOLLOWER receives knowledge, he can ask to join an ashram ...". I was able to find two copies of an article with that title and attributed to Carter online; neither copy includes that passage, for whatever reason. Jayen 466 14:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The version that I quoted is from Stars and Stripes. Individual newspaper editors typically write their own headlines for wire service articles, and trim the article copy to fit the available space. This version seems to be the longest. I'd be happy to send you a copy. It's one of the longest profiles of the subject, so it's a good resource. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've mailed a copy to Jayen. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Received. The online copies were truncated, so Will's quote was quite correct. Jayen 466 20:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I posted this below, but I'm going to repost it here. Jayen has said, if I understand his point, that this is essentially cruft and that we should be paying attention to what scholats say instead of what journalists say. Here's what two eminent scholars, Bromley and Shupe, have written:
 * As a result of some overly ambitious projects designed to spread its message, Divine Light Mission has faced severe financial difficulties. Despite these problems the Guru Maharaj Ji was continued to maintain an extremely affluent lifestyle, complete with mansion, limousine, and expsensive, fashionable clothing. According to some reports, during the mid-1970s the guru was receiving five hundred dollars per day for his personal expensies. Some premies, according to reports, decided thair guru needed his own private Boeing 747 [sic], and Maharaj Ji responded with delight at the idea. However the guru's lavish lifestyle has been the source of considerable controversy and even defections among premies due to Divine Light Mission's precarious financial condition. It is fair to conclude that Maharaj Ji comes closest to fitting the anticultists' sterotype of a leader living in luxury at the expense of his followers.
 * The assertion that "the guru's lavish lifestyle has been the source of considerable controversy and even defections among premies" is a scholarly one. It's not just some tabloid topic that wasn't important. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That material is neutral, scholarly and and a summary of it would be much superior than all the other stuff that you are trying to push through in in Proposal 7. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree 100% with Jossi. What you have brought now, Will, is an encyclopedic source. I would encourage you to use it. Jayen 466 13:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a good source and I've added it to Proposal 7. However all of the sources are suitable for this encyclopedia, even the newspapers. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the name of Bromley and Shupe's source? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith. Making proposals isn't the same as "pushing" stuff, and Proposal 7 is neutral. The reference is to Bromely & Shupe, Strange Gods, 1981, Beacon Press, Boston.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Proposas 7 is not neutral, as it is described in WP:NPOV in the context of the whole article as it stands now, and dismisses the potent arguments made here, about which no counter arguments that have any standing have been made. As per the request to AGF, I think that it has become extremely difficult. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fron "Strange Gods". page 19: Strange Gods demolishes the hysterical anticult position (but not the unhysterical anticult position) which considers all cult leaders to be greedy charlatans who brainwash their subjects to such an extent that they become mindless automatons, obeying robotlike the leader’s every command. That stereotype further maintains that there has been a historically unique explosion of cults in a “conspiratorial plot against Christianity, America, or innocent youth”  Context, context, context. An issue that some editors fail consistently to appreciate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What are you trying to say here? The authors write that the subject comes closest of anyone to fulfilling the stereotypes of anticultists. We could say that Bromley and Shupe think most such stereotypes are inaccurate except when it comes to Prem Rawat, but I don't think we need that much "context". ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Apropros of Indians and Rolls Royces, I came across this article that may be of interest even though it doesn't have anything to with the article directly. "Maharajas’ rendezvous with Rolls-Royce" ...[O]n an average each maharaja in India had 3.5 Rolls-Royce automobiles. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources and previous discussion

 * See also: Talk:Prem Rawat/Lifestyle

Discussion
I'm hoping that editors will attempt to reach some consensus on this point here, rather than in the Lead section proposal. Savlonn (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought of using Section 6 'Reception' discussion page for this debate, but the question of referring to Rawat's lifestyle is a big sticking point that I  feel it should belong here.

Firstly, there is a question of sources. Jossi recently questioned a source for the word 'opulent'. If I'm not mistaken the word 'sumptuous' has been sourced and was used, but this was changed to 'opulent' in attempt at compromise after complaint. So, can we agree ground rules here? Can we only used verbatim term or word used by a source, (is there a source for 'materialistic'?) even if that term is considered by some to be too 'strong' than another 'compromise' word that is not sourced? Savlonn (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to go back to "sumptuous", but I can't find a source for it. There are sources for "opulent". "Materialistic/materialism" also has at least two sources. "Life of luxury" has at least one source, plus this exchange at the press conference:
 * Reporter: It's hard for some people to understand how you personally can live so luxuriously in your several homes and your Rolls Royces.
 * Maharaj Ji: That life that you call luxurious ain't luxurious at all, because if any other person gets the same life I get, he's gonna blow apart in a million pieces in a split of a second....People have made Rolls Royce a heck of a car, only it's a piece of tin with a V-8 engine which probably a Chevelle Concourse has.
 * I'll keep looking to see what other terms have been used. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Will. If we have references to actual source material, then at least we can close off the debate about what was and wasn't written by sources. p.s. - sorry for my crappy English above - I must have been in a real hurry! Savlonn (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting point Francis, that Rawat lived in luxury before his father's death. That must somehow be included otherwise people might think he became a guru and THEN started living in luxury.Momento (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been meaning to propose an addition tothe bio to include the subject's caste and his father's wealth, partly for the reason that Momento mentions. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

<<<I do not think that there is a dispute about the fact that PR lives the life-style of a high-worth individual. What is being discussed is how is this presented in the article, and how it can be summarized in the lead.

In the article we have currently this:
 * Rawat had by then become financially independent as a result of contributions from his Western devotees, which made it possible for him to follow the lifestyle of an American millionaire.[56][49]


 * After scaling down the DLM's activities in the early 1980s, Rawat created the North American Sponsorship Program to help pay for the property,[63] which by 1998 was valued at $15 million.[64]


 * In 1982, the Dutch sociologist Paul Schnabel described Rawat as a pure example of a charismatic leader. He characterized Rawat as materialistic, pampered and intellectually unremarkable compared to Osho but no less charismatic.

And other bits and pieces. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If we can agree on how to summarize these sources then we can add a short version to the intro and a longer version to the body of the article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No. There is no need to add a "short version" to the intro. The intro, which is 4 paragraphs and 237 words long, should summarize the article that is 3,700 words. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We already have a short verion in the intro. It says "Rawat has been criticized...for leading a sumptuous lifestyle." ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering if most of these comments are, in fact, criticisms. Enjoying a luxurious or opulent lifestyle isn't a criticism and is only notable because many spiritual leaders don't, just like saying a successful basketball player is short. It's not a criticism it's just unusual. The only criticism I can see it that he is "materialistic" which is obviously absurd.Momento (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Gee, I'd say this is a report of a criticism:
 *  Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is sported largely by the donations of his followers.
 * How can that not be considered a criticism? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually Will, it says "critics have focused", which is hardly surprising since they criticized his height, weight, skin, diet, voice, teachings etc. Critics, criticize what they can even if it is normal.Momento (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That is from Hunt, and it is an accurate summary of this issue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we're getting somewhere. Can we keep the lead pretty much as is with a short reference to criticism of his 'opulent lifestyle', then include Hunt's quote and add a counterpoint that he was born into a family of wealth? This would make a good start, but we need to consider fair weight. My feeling is that given the notability of his lifestyle, this deserves more than just a couple of sentences. Let's consider the main points of discussion for consideration of inclusion:

1. Much of his wealth was derived from devotees' donations

2. His lifestyle being perceived as responsible for disillusionment and loss of followers

3. His Mother's criticism of his lifestyle (assuming separate 'Redflag' issue resolved - please don't repeat here)

4. Specific, notable icons of Rawat's wealth


 * a) Rolls Royces.
 * b) House in Malibu. Owned by Seva Corp and discussion done to death in March, but it will come up again so let's get it on the table now.

5. Was born into and had always experienced wealthy lifestyle

Maybe including all these points is too much weighting, but we need to find some middle ground. Points 2,3 and 5 have specific timeframes of reference. If we agree to their inclusion, should these be blended into the Chronological sections, or placed in 'Reception'? Savlonn (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I broadly agree with Savlonn. I don't think we have good sources for #1, and even #2 may be hard to support. But 3, 4, and 5 are certainly important to include. Much the attention the subject received was connected to his material possessions. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It will all boild down on the sources wanted to be used for these assertions, where these assertions will be made in the article, and how much weight it will be given in the context of the whole article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, he does not own "Roll Royces". See the mess that The Guardian got into by confusing PR with another person:
 * The object of Cainer's veneration is the Guru Maharaj Ji, who came to the west as a tubby 13-year-old in the early 1970s and persuaded thousands of ex-hippies to join his Divine Light Mission. Such was his appeal that by the end of the decade he owned 93 Rolls-Royces and had run up a $4m bill for back-taxes. In those days the guru described himself as the Lord of the Universe and the Exploding Love-Bomb. 
 * The object of Cainer's veneration is the Guru Maharaj Ji, who came to the west as a tubby 13-year-old in the early 1970s and persuaded thousands of ex-hippies to join his Divine Light Mission. Such was his appeal that by the end of the decade he owned 93 Rolls-Royces and had run up a $4m bill for back-taxes. In those days the guru described himself as the Lord of the Universe and the Exploding Love-Bomb. 


 * The Guardian, Corrections and Clarifications section, July 22, 1999
 * In an item headed The Mail man, the Maharaji and the exploding love bomb, page 5, G2, July 14, we said Guru Maharaj Ji (or Maharaji) once owned 93 Rolls Royces and had run up a bill in unpaid tax of $4m. Those statements were incorrect and referred to a different guru, unconnected with Maharaji. We were also wrong to say Maharaji had described himself as the Exploding Love Bomb. The photograph used to illustrate the piece showed the wrong person, again unconnected with Maharaji.


 * ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * When asked about his Rolls Royces during a press conference during the Millennium event, he did not deny owning them, instead he talked about how they build these cars by hand, and how beautiful they are, but they are still just a piece of tin, and then went on about if someone else had all his money he would blow himself up into a million pieces. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 02:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was in the plural and my take was he was talking about the responsibilities of being a master, rather than those of having wealth. That was the point of his saying that Rollers were just material things, inner things have a more certain reality. Rumiton (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't recall if there was more than one Rolls Royce, but some of the other vehicles were almost as expensive if not more so. The Mercedes-Benz 600, for example. As for Rawat's quotations, we can't interpret them. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have the tape, I will watch the interview section again tomorrow night and get an exact quote, and whether it was plural or not in the question. The question was not about the responsibilities of being a master or anything else, it had to do with material possessions, it was a pretty straight-forward question. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 05:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but saying he then "went on about if someone else had all his money" is pretty serious misquoting. What the quote appears to say is "if someone else had my life..." That seems to me to refer to the whole package, including the responsibilty for encouraging a lot of people's spiritual growth, not just the material wealth. Rumiton (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I already quoted one transcription above, repeated here:
 * Reporter: It's hard for some people to understand how you personally can live so luxuriously in your several homes and your Rolls Royces.
 * Maharaj Ji: That life that you call luxurious ain't luxurious at all, because if any other person gets the same life I get, he's gonna blow apart in a million pieces in a split of a second....People have made Rolls Royce a heck of a car, only it's a piece of tin with a V-8 engine which probably a Chevelle Concourse has.
 * While that reporter uses the plural in her question, I'm not sure that we can treat that as authoritative for the existece of multiple Rolls. There are other sources that cover the autos in more detail. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There are descriptions of the auto fleet, the subject's responses to questions about it, and even some follower's comments. The planes and homes also come up. In my opinion, giving the exact details of the items are less important than noting that it was a commonly-raised issue by the press and that it affected DLM finances. In 1974 the DLM was hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, yet it bought a new Jensen Motors convertible for "ceremonial" purposes for $22,000 (over $100,000 in 2003 dollars)(Probably this exact car .) Earlier that same year a Maserati was given as a wedding present. (Another wedding present was a 35-foot cabin cruiser but it was repossessed when followers couldn't pay for it.) I recall seeing a mention of a 53-car fleet, but I get the impression that most of those were used by ashrams or HQ officials rather than reserved for the subject's use. Anyway, I'll see what I can dig up.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, there must have been at least two Rolls, because he had one in the U.K. and he's described as having one in Houston at the festival. The Houston car could have been a rental or it could have been shipped over, though I've never seen any mention of those. It is described as having a refrigerator, indicating it was a limo. The Mercedes 600 limo is described in connection to Malibu. I don't recall seeing any mention of a car in reference to the Miami period. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I though we were writing a biography in an encyclopedic tone and content. It seems that the intent now is to have a piece suitable for People Magazine ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is background - the assembling of sources. The opulent life-style is a topic often raised regarding the subject, and even the most sober scolars mention it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said above, leading a luxurious lifestyle is not a criticism, it is a comment on another unusual aspect of Rawat along with his age and his behavior. And the lead should include that "Independent research has shown that Rawat's teaching was beneficial to those who practiced it" as per Galanter and Downton.Momento (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion is about Rawat's opulent lifestyle. Comments about it don't have to be criticisms to include in the article, but some of the commentary has been described as criticism. Please re-read the quotaiton from Hunt. As for the teaching of Rawat, that's a different topic and a different article. Make a proposal. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite right, "Comments about it don't have to be criticisms to include in the article" but we shouldn't label them criticisms if they are only observations. And as Hunt says, "critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle", not scholars, critics. And it isn't his "opulent lifestyle" that critics have focused on but what "appears to be his opulent lifestyle".Momento (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If Hunt were the only one drawing attention to the suject's opulent lifestyle then that quibble would have a point. But most other sources simply speak of an opulent or luxurious lifestyle, without the equivocation. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * His "what appears to be an opulent lifestyle" is undisputed. But who has criticized him for it? Only his critics as far as I can see.Momento (talk) 07:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Who are his critics and what makes them critics? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Pardon my sense of humor cutting into such a serious debate, but I did LOL when reading Momento's comment above, due to its perceived tautological nature. I think what he meant was an opinion that only sources with a negatively biased view of Rawat criticized his lifestyle, but that isn't is how quite how how it came out!
 * In this case, Momento's logic is correct; Hunt does not directly criticize Rawat's lifestyle, but refers to 'Critics' who have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle. However, this 3rd party voice is typical of Academic material; you are not going find too many Academics directly criticizing Rawat's lifestyle, as that would color their work with their own opinions, which would be as unacceptable as us placing original Research or trying to present our own opinions as fact in the Wikipedia article.
 * However, if you look at the broader selection of reliable, sourced material, you see a lot of criticism of Rawat for his opulent lifestyle apart from 'critics' (people opposed to or biased against Rawat). On the basis of the overwhelming, reliably sourced evidence provided, it should be stated that Rawat has been criticized for his opulent lifestyle.Savlonn (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The "broader selection" includes gems such as Creem, OUI, Ramparts, Pageant, and such others.... lol! Please, lets stick to mainstream sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the information disputed? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Information"? Some of the stuff you provided under the name of "sources" is not "information". And I was thinking about why would you be bothered to present such "information" when you know that these sources are totally useless for the purpose of this article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just compiling information. We haven't yet made a determinaiton that Rolling Stone is not a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are compiling information, please use a sandbox instead of adding it here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Another editor asked for what terms are used in sources, and what sources we have for aspects of the "luxurious lifestyle". We can put a copy in to the citations arrchives too, but for our discussion of how to summarize this material it's handier to have it on this page. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it is a distraction. This is a wiki, and a wikilink to as sandbox is as suitable for "handy". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Getting back to the topic at hand, can we all agree that criticisms of the subject have included an "opulent lifestyle"? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, people have criticized him for leading "an opulent lifestyle". Most often the same people who have criticized him for being fat, young and childish. Those critics are not suitable for an encyclopedia.Momento (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Yes, one of the main criticisms of Rawat is that he's led an opulent lifestyle (and continues to do so), esp. in light of the fact that followers were encouraged to donate all their possessions/life savings/children's college funds to the DLM, which then closed its ashrams, leaving them semi-destitute. I can find no reference that Rawat personally suffered any monetary hardships from these decisions, only large financial benefits. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 22:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is a widely-repeated criticism, made by the subject's close associates and family, unsuitable for an encyclopedia? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 22:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the context is missing: Why don't you propose other such "criticism" such as being called "fat", "pudgy", etc? That is what most of these sources say. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What context does Jossi think is necessary to mention that the subject has been criticized for leading an opulent or luxurious lifestyle? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Read your "sources". Their tone, content, and provenance says more about context than I can ever argue in a comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If we just take the only usable sources, Newsweek and Time Magazine above, for example, a summary of these can be quite different than "the subject has been criticized for leading an opulent or luxurious lifestyle". That's my point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your contention that TIME and Newsweek are the only reliable sources above. Please explain why the other sources are unreliable.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I already did. Please explain how/why. Creem, OUI, Ramparts, and other such should be even considered. WP:BLP asks as for the high-quality sources, not just any source, and also advises us to  avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I addressed this point a couple of weeks ago on the main article discussion page. NPOV trumps insisting only on academic sources. Where academic sources aren't available, then we select the best of the sources that are available; i.e. meeting the criterion of 'reliable source' and other policy criteria. I can see that we may need a debate/challenge for each source. If you think a source isn't reliable, 'high quality' or doesn't meet other policy criteria, then there is a process to request an uninvolved admin to establish whether the source is reliable.
 * Maybe we should go back to the sandbox in Proposal 6 for that process if required. As far this debate is concerned, have we now reached consensus to include the term 'opulent lifestyle' in the article (including lead)?Savlonn (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The New York Review of Books is a highly respected publication. To claim that it is not a reliable source is tendentious. The broad spectrum of source that mention the subect's opulent lifestyle to mention it briefly in the intro and at greater length in the main body of the article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Did I refer to the The New York Review of Books? Did I? I was referring to the other sources that you supplied for reasons that you have to yet to explain. The Review of books does not speak of an "opulent lifestyle". @Savlonn: Administrators are not judges that we go to and ask for a ruling of the reliability of sources. Such discussions are handled by anyone that wants to participate in them, with an interest in seeking consensus about specific material and sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought you were saying the TIME and Newsweek were the only reliable source. Please indicate exactly which sources you're disputing and why. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I said that Time and Newsweek are high quality sources, and in stark contrast with other sources you listed here en masse, about which you have yet to explain your reasoning for presenting them while knowing that many of these are not acceptable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Which ones aren't acceptable, and why? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are experienced enough to answer that question yourself, and that it is why I am asking you this question several times already. Answering a question with another does not provide any relief. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, now that we've wasted time on that.... ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not as experienced as Will, I would like an answer to the question as well please, specifically, which sources are you objecting to ,and why? There's no point in dragging things out later when we can deal with them right now. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 07:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So, getting back to the task at hand is there any opposition to saying that the subject has been criticized for an "opulent lifestyle" in the intro, and expanding on that in the article? If so, why? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, my previous objections have not been addressed. Materialistic and even luxurious are neutral words, OK for the voice of an encyclopedia. Opulent goes too far, and in the lead would compromise the encyclopedia's neutral voice. OK to say "source XYZ described PR's lifestyle as opulent" in the main article body. The lead should be strictly neutral. Rumiton (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Aye, Aye, Aye. I fail to understand how this simple point gets lost again and again. I have argued consistently for the need to attribute opinions, and separate such from facts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

<<< Process is sometimes useful. And this is one of these cases: A lead summarizes the article. Have article first, then summarize. Duh. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Problem is that "materialistic" isn't a synonym of opulent, luxurious, or sumptuous. However, opulent, sumptuous, and luxurious are synonyms of each other.  None are neutral terms, they are descriptive terms.  Adjectives.    "Materialistic" means something quite different, i.e., it would characterize the opulence, luxury, and sumptuousness.  Synonyms of "materialistic" are "greedy," "possessive," "unspiritual," and "worldly." It is a fact that Maharaji has been criticized for leading a sumptuous, luxurious, and sumptuous lifestyle, so it should not be left out of the lede, if it's going to be written about in the article body.  Sylviecyn (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not have a problem with the term "luxurious". I have a problem with the unattributed assertion that "he has been criticized", unless we use a a source such as Hunt's that summarizes the issue quite well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If folks agree to saying in the intro that the subject has been criticized for a "luxurious, materialistic lifestyle", then that's close enough for me. I'll go add that to the Intro proposal. (See P4.15). We can next address what to put in the body, and where to put it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You have missed my point. Please re-read. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And it is the wrong process. We first add content to an article, and then we write a lead, per WP:LEAD, not the other way around. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't get caught up in process, Jossi. We're working on many aspects of the article at once. I'll start a new section below to discuss how to cover it in the body of the article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Duh" yourself. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Section Break

 * Alright, time for one of these (points up). I've been watching the discussion. I would like to ask, in the interest of the mediation, that, to Jossi, the sources that you object their use to, please list them and please do state your objections to them. This case has been going on for 2 months now, and while I knew this would be a long case, we should try to be as to the point as possible. So, carry on the discussion, but try to be more concise. I have one other request. Can we try to use less of  these, please?. I normally wouldn't ask, but it makes a page extremely hard to read on a cellphone (and I edit Wikipedia a little on my cellphone), so it would help me too :). Thanks.  Steve Crossin   (contact)  07:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (a) Many of the "sources" provided by Will Beback above are useless, and the reasons are obvious: Creem, OUI, Pageant and others, are not reliable sources for an encyclopedic article, and in particular for a BLP.
 * (b) Other sources describe gifts given to Rawat by his followers
 * (c) Other sources make references of reporters asking about a perceived contradiction for living a "luxurious life" while being a "guru"
 * (d) Other sources, such as Newsweek describe a "provocative contrast" by having access to a $100,000 town house and other services, again reporting that these are gifts from devotees
 * My argument is then very simple: Based on the sources that are reputable, we cannot speak of "he has been criticized for leading a sumptuous lifestyle", as these are not criticisms, but observations. The closest we have to a neutral presentation is Hunt: Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Jossi, 1) which sources are the "and others" that you refer to? 2) Why are Creem, Pageant and Oui unacceptable sources? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I can see where this discussion is going... Steve, may I suggest that you create some type of sandbox framework to work through the sources in a structured way, such as with columns for name of source, specific compliant criteria, etc, or whatever else you feel is appropriate? Savlonn (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Unnecessary, and the wrong process. Just move the sources to a page such as we have done at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars, provide citations, reference, and page numbers. Then propose an edit based on one or more of these sources. Doing a truck-dump of sources does not work for me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars aren't in dispute as reliable sources, or other criteria; the sources provided by Francis and Will on this page are. Creating an edit based on a source isn't useful until the source itself has been agreed as acceptable for inclusion. The request has been for specific complaints about specific sources to be articulated so that consensus is reached as to whether each contentious source is acceptable or not. As this specific articulation has not occurred, I am a suggesting that a structure be created to enable a mapping of complaint against each contentious source. Once consensus has been reached on acceptable sources, then they can be used for edits to be created in the relevant sandbox section for discussion and hopefully agreement, without any further debate there about the acceptability of the source. I was not suggesting to move the source material from this page. Savlonn (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The reliability of a source cannot be assessed in a vacuum; it needs to be assessed in the context of the edit. There is no such a thing as an "absolute" in regard what WP:RS advises as as a guideline. The overriding policies are NPOV, V, NOR and BLP: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Given this context, please say which sources you think are unacceptable and why. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose an edit (text and sources), and I will tell you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Jossi, you've dumped truck loads of sources onto talk pages before. Having source text on the same page where we're discussing edits based on them is reasonable. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Five scholarly sources is not a truck dump. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How about six? Or seven? Clearly you've "dumped" excerpts from sources onto talk pages before. It wasn't disruptive then and it isn't disruptive now. If you have a complaint about using any of these sources please explain it. I've asked you several times and you've never answered. Unless there's an explanation it's just an "I don't like it" complaint.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose an edit (text and sources), and I will tell you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Above you wrote: Many of the "sources" provided by Will Beback above are useless, and the reasons are obvious: Creem, OUI, Pageant and others, are not reliable sources for an encyclopedic article, and in particular for a BLP. You didn't say, "depending on the edit". You made a sweeping statement that some of the sources listed here are "useless", and are not reliable sources. Which sources were you referring to and why aren't they reliable? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * These threee are obvious: Read: Oui (magazine) a pornographic magazine, Pageant (magazine) a glamour magazine, Creem a rock-and-roll magazine, are obviously not quality sources to be used in the BLP of a person that is not related to these subjects. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Playboy is also pornographic magazine, and it has a reputation for high-quality journalism. The writer of the Oui piece is Marjoe Gortner, who is a notable figure and well-qualified to write about young preachers. Rolling Stone is also a rock-and-roll magazine, and like Creem it has a good reputation. Pageant was a competitor to Reader's Digest. Those don't appear to be substantive arguments. And what are the other sources that you say are also unacceptable? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Still, does not work, Will. An article in Creeem that refers to this person as a "plump little porkshop" and other such banter, is not a quality source, whatever you say, and whatever reputation you want to ascribe to it. Same applies to a hard core porno magazine that refers to this person as " The world's most overweight midget." Forget it, Will, not a happening thing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So you judge whether a source is reliable by whether or not they make flippant remarks? If we were using those remarks might be an issue, but that's not what we're talking about here. The source material listed above concerns Rawat "luxurious lifestyle". Creem carried articles on hundreds of prominent young people who had lots of money, so I think they are well-qualified to talk about Rawat's possessions. The writer of that piece is Richard Elman, a respectable journalist. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Will, no. A hard-core porno magazine is not a usable source for an article of a BLP. A journalist may be a "respectable",. but when he/she writes for a porno magazine, he/she abides by the editorial guidelines of such magazine (fact checking, anyone?) and writes for the audience of that magazine. Not a usable source for a BLP, period. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Are those the only three you object to? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As for Marjoe, he is noteworthy enough for us to add his views of Rawat as a notable commentator. In this context, the only relevant material from him is this: And cars. . . . He talks about cars quite a lot in his parables. Probably because he loves them and has so many: Rolls-Royces and Mercedes, motorcycles, and that sort of thing-all gifts. That text isn't controversial and doesn't make any extraordinary claims. I doubt we'd use it as a source simply because we have so many other sources that say the same thing. In other contexts, we might use Marjoe's commentary with attribution.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Jossi, Steve asked you to "please list them and please do state your objections to them." You clearly have objections. Please say what they are rather than keeping us guessing. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I will not. Propose an edit (text and sources) and we can discuss. I will not accept to be forced make sweeping blanket assessments of sources without the context of a specific text and a specific source or sources to support that text. (Sorry, Steve). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You already made sweeping, blanket statements about these sources. We're just trying to get you to explain yourself. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Who is this "we" of which you speak? Sounds very divisive to me. Rumiton (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Will keep making the same mistake of addressing some editors as being a clique. I have already asked him to not to do this, as it is not useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "We" in this case means Steve and I, the peope who asked Jossi to eplxain himself. Please don't assume bad faith. I routinely use "we" to refer to the editing community or Wikipedia itself. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You simply cannot assert yourself as "the voice of the editing community". Does not work, Will, and not a good practice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
 * Thanks for your advice, but I'll continue doing as I've done before. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Getting back to these sources, I don't see any legitimate reason to exclude Pageant or Creem. The Marjoe piece in Oui is suitable as a source for Marjoe's views, which are themselves noteworthy and should be attributed if used. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, these are suitable as per arguments presented. A rock-and-roll magazine and a hard-core pron magazine, and other such, are not suitable sources for a BLP, regardless of the author (unless he/she is an authority). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.  (from WP:RS. Also from WP:BLP, which is the case here: Be very firm' about the use of high quality references. I am exercising that policy and will continue to be very firm for the use of high-quality sources, which many of these are not.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is an article by a respected journalist in rock-and-roll magazine an unsuitable source for a biography? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the article, and your question will be answered. And if after reading that article, you still believe that it is a high-quality source for a BLP in Wikipedia, you will have to take a hard look at your early claims that you consider yourself a "neutral and uninvolved editor". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oui, Creeme and Pageant, as per RS are not mainstream news organizations, are they? I would argue that these are questionable sources in the context of a biography of a living person, such as this. As abundantly made clear in that policy ::page, we should insist on high-quality sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The writer of the Creem article is a well-respected journalist. I'd say that Creem and Pageant are both mainstream magazines. They're not fringe publications. What makes you think that they are fringe sources? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that these are mainstream press sources? You may want to carefully re-read the policies and guidelines I have cited above. I do not see the need to repeat myself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I get the impression from reading the Wikipedia articles about them. Crrem was a competitor to Rolling Stone, and very much in the same league. Likewise, Pageant was a competitor to Readers Digest, and of similar quality. They are mainstream publications because they appealed to mainstream audiences. If you insist that they are unsuitable for biographies then we can take this to WP:RSN to get other input. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (tabbing out a bit as per Steve's request) As alluded to previously, I was thinking along similar lines (WP:RSN) in terms of resolving the reliable sources debate where we can't get agreement here. However,a specific list of disputed sources is first required, with a brief rationale for each objection to a source e.g. Is the objection to an Author, Title of publication (or both) etc. So far, we have three. Savlonn (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Previously in reading discussions about this article, I kept seeing progress being held up by circular disputes, where there is a long discussion about an objection to a source based on one criterion, then if consenses is finally reached a new source objection criterion is raised and the debate starts again. I think we all agree that sweeping statements of objection serve no purpose. Steve has asked that specific objections be made in order to continue the mediation process. To me, the only way of short-circuiting the endless debate loops is to unambiguously state the specific complaints, then either gain agreement on the source here or at WP:RSN. Savlonn (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand and agree the need for contextual agreement on the use of a source with respect to a specific edit, but this can occur once the source has been agreed as reliable, without holding up the discussion of specific edits. This is no different from (say) debating an edit referencing Hunt. We can debate the weighting and appropriateness for the specific edit within the context of the article, but without having to debate whether he is a reliable source.Savlonn (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So, in summary, the sooner we have our 'bucket' of agreed reliable sources based on those at the top of this page, to compliment the existing list of accepted sources, the sooner we can finish the debate about sources and focus on improving the article. Savlonn (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That would not work, Savlonn: I repeat my previous argument: Per the lead of WP:RS,  How reliable a source is depends on context. The process should be to propose an edit, and provide the sources to substantiate the edit. At that point the reliabilty of these sources could be assessed in the context they are used. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your goodwill, Savlonn, but I have to agree with Jossi. To illustrate the problem, the magician, writer and "professional sceptic" James Randi was approved as a reliable source for "spiritual" articles, then a great battle ensued when an editor wanted to put Randi's hostile description of one of the Knowledge techniques (which are respected Indian yoga practices) into these articles, a description that showed conclusively that he had never heard of them before. In the context of that technique, he was an ignoramus. We need to go straight to the individual issues, no matter how tedious the process. Rumiton (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rumiton, you are mis-characterizing that discussion. It was never shown that Randi is an "ignoramus". His description of the techniques is consistent with other descriptions. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Will, that is entirely incorrect. Khecari mudra quotes Indian spiritual sources that treat that technique will great respect, noting that it has been taught by revered masters over a long period. Randi's description was the knee-jerk response of someone hearing about it for the first time. The word ignoramus is mine and I repeat it: that is what he was. Rumiton (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That maybe so, but it certainly wasn't something that we all agreed upon, as you appeared to assert. The subject of Randi is on the list of items to be mediated, and is not yet decided. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Negotiation?

 * After watching the discussion here for a few days, it seems that there's no progress, if you look at the large picture. Obviously, a compromise needs to be formed. A balance between the current suggestions. Thoughts, anyone? Steve Crossin   (contact)  14:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The point of this topic is to discuss how to cover Rawat's wealth and lifestyle. Tha dispute over sources is just a side issue distracting us from moving forward on that front. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Requesting blanket statements about reliability of a sources, when WP:RS advises us that  How reliable a source is depends on context, is the issue that is distracting us from moving forward. Propose an edit and we can discuss the sources for that edit. That is the best way to move forward. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if Jossi didn't make blanket statements then other editors wouldn't keep asking him to explain them. I suggest that, in order to move foprward, we consider any published material posted above to be reliable unless an editor makes a case against them. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Great recipe for perpetual warfare. We need to do way better than that. Rumiton (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see what is the issue with proposing an edit supported by sources as we have been doing all along since the start of this mediation effort. So far, it has produced some results. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So long as nobody is making blanket statements that some apparenty reliable sources are unaccaptable, then there's no reason we can't move forward. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Parties, please have a quick look at this (for those that haven't seen it. Though I don't want to start a fuss over this, I think it's necessary that it's clear on the reasons behind my recent actions. Steve Crossin   (contact)  16:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Steve, I think we're all grateful that you're staying around to help with this mediation. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Aye. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed.Momento (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahem...
Can we please not edit war in my userspace?. Thanks. Steve Crossin  (contact)  19:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

New Article in the media
An interesting new media article describing the evolution of Wikipedia's Prem Rawat article, particularly since last year, has been published at the Independent Media Center. Ratbag web site sparks Wikipedia brouhaha. Administrators, please add a link to this article at the top of this page next to the link to Cade Metz.W Crub (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Indymedia postings aren't usable as sources. Thanks though. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that article does give me some intersting background information..... Steve Crossin   (contact)  06:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Such as? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Francis, with respect, I have a right to read background information in the area without being questioned about it. It doesn't alter how I'll handle this case, and being a thorough mediator, or at least, hopefully one that tries to have a lot of background information related to the case, it doesn't change how I mediate. And noting that I'm mentioned in that article does now show me just how big of an impact this case may have. I suppose there will be more of this to come. Thanks, Steve Crossin   (contact)  06:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The question was entirely innocent: I saw no background info that wasn't already covered in (for instance) Wikipedia's ArbCom case on Rawat. I was interested in what you learnt from the article that wasn't already covered in our own media. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I apologise. Admittedly, I haven't reviewed the entire arbitration case, but one thing that has become very obvious, as I already see my name on that article, albeit in a comment. I have come to realise one thing. Once this case is over, there's going to be some discussion over how I handled this case, and it's probably going to be both positive and negative. I suppose I should've expected this to happen. Steve Crossin   (contact)  06:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I sympathise with the feeling, so I apologise too. At one time I entered this debate without involvement whatsoever. Didn't take too long, now Indymedia describes me as being in "a phalanx of cynical editors". I think Will's words were the wisest: Indymedia postings aren't usable as sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I really know how you feel, Francis. The use of Indymedia isn't new.  But remember, it isn't Indymedia describing you, it's an anonymous coward using Indymedia to try to discredit you.  This is an old tactic, used before, so consider the source, which is best ignored (based on my experience).  I also think the link to the article should be removed from this page.  Sylviecyn (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No the use of Indymedia is not new, Rawat's detractors have often tried to use the site to promote their version of history. I saw no attack on Francis in that particular Indymedia article. However, it is interesting to note the toxic bile entering the dialogue on this page as soon as certain contributors post. The real nature of a disposition never fails to materialize, sadly. I suggest this discussion would be better served by the omission of such ugly and inflammatory terms such as 'anonymous coward'. W Crub (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what Indymedia is, is it something like the Register? I notice its link has been removed, and good riddance. Anyway we should just proceed with what we are doing with a continuing careful regard to WP:BLP and the other considerations. Rumiton (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)