User talk:Steven Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal3

Proposal 1
Millennium '73 was an important event in the life of the subject. However by many accounts he had little active involvement in it besides his role as centerpiece. The event is covered in detail at Divine Light Mission. All this article needs is a summary. Beyond the minimal proposal I've made, additonal material which is directly connected to the subject may be appropriate. But details about the DLM, its finances, and so on are out of place. Let's avoid unneccessary duplication between articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Beyond the minimal proposal I've made, additional material which is directly connected to the subject may be appropriate. I would like to see what material will be included before I comment on this proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not planning to add any more. I was leaving the door open for others to propose more material if they wanted to. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you double-check your version of Melton re the passage "the failure of the event to meet expectations generated negative publicity and left the Divine Light Mission heavily in debt"? Melton's Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America (1992, p. 219) does not mention negative publicity resulting from the event; the passage on Millennium reads, "... an event celebrating the birthday of Maharaj Ji's father and designed to announce the beginning of a thousand years of peace and prosperity. The event failed; attendance was minuscule. The Mission was left with a $600,000 debt which required it to cut its staff and programs." -- Jayen 466 22:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Collier mentions the negative publicity, but we can find a better source. Let me dig through my research. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't find a source besides Collier that refers specifically to negative publicity. The status of Collier as a source is in mediation limbo. Downton says that "Many followers were disappointed", so I've replaced the "publicity" with that. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * PS: The L.A. Times reports that:
 * Only 20,000 people showed up and the group felt it was portrayed poorly by the media. MARK FORSTER Los Angeles Times Jan 12, 1979 pg. A1
 * Maybe something else will show up too. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Putting in that the festival was a "failure" and then sayig it was said to be "the high-point of Rawat's prominence as a guru.[43]" is laughably non-NPOV. Rumiton (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Proprosals 1 and 3 both suffer from this defect. Rumiton (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please explain. We have numerous sources that say the festival was a "failure", "fiasco", etc. We also have plenty of sources that the DLM went downhill after that, both in terms of membership and media coverage. These are sourced assertions, presented neutrally. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am starting to think Will stands for wilfully obtuse. To state that the high point of someone's life work was a "failure" is not neutrality. Far from neutrality. Rumiton (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Ready?
It's been several days since the last comment. If there are no objections I'll suggest that this material be added to the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're refering to Proposal 3, Proposal 1, I agree. It's not necessary to mention "Hans Jayanti" because that festival was always known as "Millennium" even though it was scheduled around the anniversary of the date of Shri Hans's birthday, which is November 9th.  To mention "Hans Jayanti" is extraneous information that is meaningless to readers.
 * Note (again) about these proposal pages: I don't know about anyone else, but I find the way these proposal pages are set to be unwieldy.  It goes against the grain of my decades-long experience in technical, procedural manual, and business writing.  These page headings must include the title of the specific proposals, eg, "Proposal 3 - DLM Millennium," (so one doesn't have to write down on paper what these edit drafts respresent -- especially in this the age of technology!).  Then each "proposal proposal" (that labeling just goes again my grain!) :) should be labeled "Draft1, 2, 3..." not "Proposal 1, 2, 3..." and should include editor's signature.  I dunno what the big problem is with making this process more simple -- I already proposed this to Steve and got no response.  I don't have eight hours a day to devote to Wikipedia as some other do.  Sylviecyn (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, and your comment wasn't ignored. Generally, these mediation cases only have one proposal page, this is the first case that has had more than one proposals page. I could do a page move to a more descriptive title, however I really am not so sure how it would be very, well useful. I generally think that on these pages, they shouldn't be signed with 4 tildes, I used this idea in the Second Intifada case, and the editors discussed each version on the article talk page. Now, signing the comments, I suppose you can if you really want to, but I don't see the necessity, it could cause issues, such as, "Editor X wrote proposal Y, look at their bias by mentioning/including/not including Z". Could cause some issues. Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  16:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Steve. I didn't say you ignored me, I said I got no response.  :)   Anyway, even though I think the way you've set these proposal pages is tedious and unwieldy, I have a request that when folks are talking about a particular Proposal of a Proposal (which should be titled "Draft" for ease of reference) on the corresponding talk pages, it would be very helpful if editors would be so kind as to preface their discussion with the proposal number to which they are referring.  Btw, looking over the Second Intifada page didn't demonstrate anything to me at all, so I'm not sure what your point was.  Thanks.  Sylviecyn (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the Second Intifada talk page, in the large collpasible box, but never mind :) Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  13:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * To Sylvicyn regarding the Hans Jayanti festival: This was also discussed at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal1. My reasoning is that the Hans Jayanti was an important biographical event in two successive years, 1972 and '73. Since it's mentioned twice it's a useful detail. I'm not tied to including it, I just think it's easier to include than to exclude it. If other editors prefer to delete it I won't object. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Will. Hans Jayanti (HJ) was an annual festival held on or about November 9th, not just in 1972 and 1973.  I don't feel strongly either way about keeping the reference to HJ, but I've never, ever heard of "Millennium 73" referred to as the "renamed Hans Jayanti festival."  What does the source(s) say about it?  Thanks.  Sylviecyn (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The text (in Prop.1) says The Hans Janyanti of 1973, called "Millennium '73",... The source (in the DLM article) says: So when the DLM's annual Hans Jayanti [= birthday] festival drew near, although it has been traditionally held in India, the decision was made to move the show to America. I suggest reading the existing paragraphs in Prem Rawat to see how the festival information appears in the context of events. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 2
An editor has posted "Proposal 2". Could he please describe the changes from Proposal 1 and explain the reasoning? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly. Numerous sources describe SatPal and Davis as the "main organizers" and they should be identified as such and the source provided doesn't mention any other organizers. The assertion "the failure of the event to meet expectations disappointed followers" is contradicted by "premies were reported to be "cheerful, friendly and unruffled, and seemed nourished by their faith". No source provided for " The festival has been described as the high-point of Rawat's prominence as a guru.[43]". In any case, we should stick with facts rather than opinions.Momento (talk) 08:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Numerous sources say all kinds of things about the festival, and we're doing our best to report them all in the DL article. I'll change the desciption of the organizers to meet your objection that it implies there are more of them.


 * You deleted this sourced info: "Called the "youth culture event of the year"[40], the failure of the event to meet expectations disappointed followers[41] and left the Divine Light Mission heavily in debt.[42] The festival has been described as the high-point of Rawat's prominence as a guru.[43]" That "[43]" is a source. That's all sourced info. The fact that members were smiling during the event doesn't mean that they weren't disappointed. Even Collier describes how disappointed she was. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's right Will, and you deleted twice as much sourced material in your proposal. You deleted "Though it was not covered by the national television news, it did get extensive coverage in the print media and was depicted in the award-winning U.S. documentary "Lord of the Universe". And deleted "The premies were reported to be "cheerful, friendly and unruffled, and seemed nourished by their faith". To the 400 premie parents who attended, Rawat 'was a rehabilitator of prodigal sons and daughters". Other reporters found a "confused jumble of inarticulately expressed ideas.'" And removed "According to Thomas Pilarzyk, the Millennium economic deficit was partially the result of poor management by the "holy family", Rawat's mother and three older brothers as well as the much lower than anticipated attendance. Consequently, the festival necessitated policy shifts within the movement organization". All sourced material. Why do you keep complaining about my edits when you do exactly the same thing? This is about distilling the DLM version to make a more suitable version for the PR article.Momento (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The exact amount of the debt isn't the most relevant to the subject and is the kind of thing better left to the full treatment at DLM. The quote "youth culture event of the year" is also not highly relevant, so we can leave it off too. However information about the subject's performance there, and other comments about him directly are appropriate and relevant. I'll prepare another draft to try to bridge the differences. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Prop.3
I've posted Prop.3. It's drafted to incorporate some of the text from Prop.2 as well as the discussion on this page. It includes some assessment of the event. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal #4
It is about time that editors make an effort to attribute opinions to those that hold them, rather than asserting these opinions as if they were facts (which are obviously not). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A) We dont' need to say "(a festival celebrating Rawat's father's birthday)," because we already explain that in the previous paragraph. B) What's our source that says it was Satpal Rawat and Rennie Davis who promoted the event as "the most significant event in human history"? That appears to be a false attribution. C) Downton say "many" followers were disappointed, not "some". ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Corrected. The description: "the most significant event in human history" is attributed to Davis, no? The older brother was also a main organizer, no? Otherwise provide the source for the quote (which is not available in your proposal). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it attributed to Davis? I don't know where or by whom. Galanter says just that is was billed as "the most significant event in human history" without saying who was billing it that way. Olson says it was publicized as the most significant event in human history, also without saying who was doing the publicizing. Since the subject had a 50-member public relations team there's no reason to assume that Davis or Satpal Rawat weer the ones who came up with that slogan, or were responsible for promoting it that way. Of course, if you find a source that says differently then we can deal with that. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is Mangalwadi talking about Rawat's prominence in the US? If so it should be stated.Momento (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Balyogeshwar reached the zenith of his popularity during the Millennium Festival 1973, in Houston. There his devotees declared him to be "the savior of the world" who was ushering in the thousand years of utopia. It would not be an esaggeration to say that at that time is popularity overshadowed that of all the gurus and religious leaders in the world. But it did not take too long for it to dwindle to almost nothing. Mangalwadi, Vishal. The World of Gurus. Vikas Publishing House New Delhi 1977. p.219
 * That's the reference. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed, staying close to the sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The phrase "most holy and significant event in human history" is also mentioned in Sophia Collier's Soul Rush book, Chapter 12, "Millennium Fever," where she attributes it to Bal Bhagwan Ji, (BB) in her text, who is Sat Pal. I know Collier's book is being questioned as a source.  Sylviecyn (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That detail could be added to the full treatement at DLM, but it's not necessary in this summary. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless there are any strong objections substantiated with solid arguments, I think this is ready for implementation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If the phrase "most holy and significant event in human history" is attributed to BBJ it should be. Mangalwadi's claim about Rawat's popularity should also include the extraordinary qualifier that his "popularity overshadowed that of all the gurus and religious leaders in the world". I have created Prop 5 to illustrate the changes.Momento (talk) 04:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The same phrase is also attribued to Prem Rawat. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I know he referred to his father's birthday celebration Hans Jayanti in that way, not just Millennium Hans Jayanti. Did PR publicize Millennium as "the most holy and significant event in human history" or was that only Satpal Rawat?Momento (talk) 05:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, PR also used that phrase regarding Millennium 73. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, there's more we can quote from Mangalwadi if we want to extend the quotation further. I fwe going to quote him as being the most popular ever we need to also say that the popularity dwindled to almost nothing. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Momento's edits don't appear to be "strong objections substantiated with solid arguments". Isuggest we add the P4 text and then continue the discussion about further improvements. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Mangalwadi wrote in 1977. The quote about PR's peak popularity needs to be defined and the next comment that he was more popular than any one does that. Both relate to Millennium, which is the section we are discussing. The dwindling to nothing applies to a later, post Millennium period which is where that quote can be placed, along with Rawat's split from his mother, downsized DLM and turned his back on the media.Momento (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have "strong objections substantiated with solid arguments"? I don't see any. Let's move forward with the text we've got and then continue discussing further improvements. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Saying someone reached the high of the popularity without explaining what that is is meaningless. Either the the whole description of his popularity at the time of the festival should be included or none. Thanks.Momento (talk) 09:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Momento, you said that The quote about PR's peak popularity needs to be defined and the next comment that he was more popular than any one does that.. Perhaps suggest how to do so? Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  09:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done that in Prop 5.Momento (talk) 09:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Just about this source, for this piece of text, "...which overshadowed that of all the gurus and religious leaders in the world.", that seems like a piece of text that may need an exceptional source, as it appears to be an exceptional claim. Is that boox availible on Google Books? Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  09:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Steve, I've quoted some of the material in this section, see above. The author is a Vishal Mangalwadi. While he writes in a somewhat breezy-style, he is a valuable source because he's approaching the subject from an Indian perspective and context while most of the sources for this topic are Western. I can send you (or anyone who'd like it) a scan of the material if you email me a request. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC) (Steve's link doesn't work - did he mean the Mangalwadi material or the Downton?)
 * Yes, I'd like to see it very much, not that I dispute the content at all. I'll send you an email right away, so be ready for it. Thanks, Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  09:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Getting back to Momento's point, we have more sources than just Mangalwadi commenting about the Millennium (and the marriage) being the turning points of the popularity of the subject, some by name:
 * "The 'Millennium 73' festival, a test of the guru's popularity, was a failure." [Marty 1984]
 * "Perhaps because of this failure, Maharaji transformed his initial teachings ..." [Hunt 2003]
 * "...first of a series of events which gradually led the Mission to withdraw from the public scene." [Melton 1986]
 * "The disastrous 1973 rally changed the situation" [Bromley & Shupe 1981]
 * "a major setback" ""the event failed; attendance was miniscule" [Melton 1986]
 * "great disappointment...grave financial crisis" [Chryssides 2001]
 * "fell far short of expectations" "a variety of millennial expectations, such as the arrival of world peace, failed to materialze and the whole undertaking left members of the movement disillusioned and in debt. "[Galanter 1989]
 * "When the anticipated large crowds of people failed to manifest, the movement fell into deep debt, which effectively crippled it." [Lewis 2005]
 * "In 1973, a disastrous rally at the Houston Astrodome left the movement in the United States in dire financial straits and bereft of credibility."
 * Those are just the ones at hand. There are others that more specifically mention the Millenium festival and the marriage as turning points in the subject's prominence. I think we could devote three paragroah to the topic, but it'd be better to keep it shorter. Is there a reason to hold up the rest of the text while we seek agreement on this addition? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to note, I've seen the quoted text, and it says, from what I read, "It would not be an exaggeration to say that at the time his popularity overshadowed that of all gurus and religious leaders in the world. But it did not take too long for it to dwindle to almost nothing.". I think if it's made clear that this is the opinion of the writer, about the subject's popularity, and add somewhere, as neutrally as possible, that the popularity over time reduced (just so we aren't paraphrasing), I think that could work. Can the editors think of a way to do that? Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  11:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Rather than interrupting the paragraph about the Millennium to talk about general popularity, why don't we move some of the material from the "follower" section up here and do a paragraph on the rising popularity of the subject in the same section, "Leaving India"? The "spectacular beginning" of Rawat and the "wild growth" of his following are worth noting. But it shouldn't be in the middle of the Millennium paragraph. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's up to the parties here, whatever works best is fine with me :-) Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  11:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

4a
If we can agree to put in the first paragraph now, without the Mangalwadi at all, then we can make a new proposal about adding the popularity material that Momento wants. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This material comes at the end of the section. I suggest we split it and, as a separate paragraph create something like:
 * The rest of the above looks fine to me, but this Mangalwadi guy? Is he honestly saying Prem Rawat's popularity exceeded that of the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury? I think he is best discreetly ignored. Rumiton (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The underlying statement, that the Millennium marked the high point of Rawat's prominence, is both sourceable and obviously true. The other comments by Mangalwadi are less obvious. Anyway, again I suggest that we make the replacement of the text in the first paragraph with the paragraphs in the article now, and start a separate discussion about the popularity paragraph. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 11:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Due to time constrains, I may not be able to add to this debate. It seems you are doing well without my help here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * To recap, this propsoal is to replace the two paragraphs now at the end of the the "Leaving India" section with the first paragraph in the box above, and then to start a new proposal for a paragraph to discuss Rawat's popularity/prominence during the early 1970s that would incorporate the Mangalwadi view and others. Any objections? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Rawat's opinion that he considered the event "satisfactory" is necessary. Therefore "The Hans Janyanti event of 1973, called "Millennium '73", was held in the Astrodome of Houston, Texas and was publicized as "the most significant event in human history".[1] Rawat's eldest brother Satpal Rawat (known as Bal Bhagwan Ji) and activist Rennie Davis, the main organizers, predicted attendance of 100,000 or more but the event only attracted an estimated at 20,000 and left the DLM heavily in debt.[2] According to Downton and other observers, the failure of the event to meet expectations disappointed many followers but Rawat expression his satisfaction with it.[3]Momento (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What's the source for Rawat's satisfaction? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I don't think that bringing up fresh items, one after another, is helpful for us to get to a consensus. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't find the source for "satisfaction" so let's ignore it until I can. And everybody is suggesting changes including you.Momento (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you accept the proposal I've outlined here? If not why not? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I accept your proposal but it is necessary to put a "their" in "the failure of the event to meet their expectations disappointed many followers".Momento (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's neecssary, as it seems to have failed to meet everyone's expectations. But in the interest of consensus I'm willing to compromise. Is there anyone who disagrees with this proposal? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Many scholar's note that many American's had millennial expectations. And most non U.S. attendees and many Americans will have missed all the hype that Rennie, BBJ and the media created.Momento (talk) 09:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't see any value in Mangalwadi, as I said before. His prose is verging on hysteria. Nothing he says is new, and it is expressed much more mildly and soberly elsewhere. The hyperbole is not needed and does not help the article. Rumiton (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe you're not clear on what the proposal is. This propsoal is to replace the two paragraphs now at the end of the the "Leaving India" section with the first paragraph in the box above, and then to start a new proposal for a paragraph to discuss Rawat's popularity/prominence during the early 1970s that would incorporate the Mangalwadi view and others. So we can discuss Mangalwadi in the next proposal. This proposal doesn't include him. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 15:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * and then to start a new proposal for a paragraph to discuss Rawat's popularity/prominence during the early 1970. No such proposals have been made or accepted. We are working on this proposal now and what future proposals and or changes will bring up, have no bearing in this debate ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No one said it did. The only reason I'm mentioning it now is to forestall anyone saying "but we already decided not to include that material".  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Does anyone object to this proposal? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Which proposal is on the table, Proposal #4? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4a, see above. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with the first paragraph, except for the grammatical error, "only attracted an estimated at 20,000", take out the "at". -- Mael e fique (t a lk)|undefined 00:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Mael-Num (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 4a is not a proposal that is completed. It has blah blah at the end. Please place a clean copy in the Proposal's page, and not here so it is clear. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This proposal is to replace the two paragraphs now at the end of the the "Leaving India" section with the first paragraph in the yellow box above, and then to start a new proposal for a paragraph to discuss Rawat's popularity/prominence during the early 1970s that would incorporate the Mangalwadi view and others. Is that unclear? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is unclear. Please put the text you want to be considered in a proposal at User:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat/Proposal3 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd suggested it because ti thought it would get quick agreement. Since that hasn't happened I'll go back to trying to get agreement on the Mangalwadi and related material by creating a fresh proposal. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what led you to expect quick agreement on the Mangalwadi observations. They are preposterous, and I think they are insulting to the current more thoughtful tone around here. I suggest you write up your proposal without that particular turkey. (Sorry if he is a living person. Or turkey.) Rumiton (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC) I have had a go myself with Proposal 7 (Now Proposal 6 -- M-N). Rumiton (talk) 12:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I expected quick agreement because I proposing detaching the Mangalwadi material. But instead of agreeing to that you wanted to keep arguing about Mangalwadi. So let's argue about Magalwadi. What's preposterous about saying that Millennium 73 was the zenith of Rawat's prominence? That's said, more or less, by numerous sources. We just used him because he says it clearly. Is there any dispute over the actual assertion? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Detaching? Or just moving? See my comments later in next section. Rumiton (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 6

 * I hope this one is accurate, neutral and concise, and has the inestimable advantage of leaving out the egregious Mangalwadi. Rumiton (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I moved Prop 7 back to Prop 6, and changed the heading on this discussion to reduce confusion. Mael-Num (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing that. I had a problem with the Prop 6 font color and then the text disappeared. Rumiton (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What is egregious about Mangalwadi? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Mangalwadi uses a wild hyperbole, bordering on a lie, in describing Prem Rawat's early fame (the most popular spiritual leader in the world) just to contrast with his next wild statement (dwindled to almost nothing after the event.) Statements like these have no place in an encyclopedia. Rumiton (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would hope that editors put WP:RS in the context of our content policies, NPOV, NOR, and V, which with all their nuances have to prevail together with common sense and sound editorial judgment. Mangalwadi is fun reading but we should not quote him verbatim for obvious reasons as expressed above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I never added his verbatim material. I simply used him as the source for the indisputable assertion that the Millennium event was the high-point of Rawat prominence. It was other editors (momento) who added the statements that Rumiton complains about, statements that I'm not proposing to include. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, this version incorrectly attributes the "most significant event" line to Satpal. That line was used widely, and there's even a source for Prem Rawat using it himself. We shouldn't directly attribute it to anyone, since we don't know who coined it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If we don't know who originated it, perhaps we should say so, or not use it at all? Rumiton (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We do know, due to numerous sources, that the event was "billed as" the "most significant..." It is mentioned in almost every discussion of the event. It's an important detail to give context to the significance of the event. Without it the event would appear to be just another festival. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Originally, and also OR, Rawat described the Hans Jayanti festival as the "most significant and holy event etc " and "this year it would take place in America?.Momento (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't follow. Can you express that differently? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rawat said in the letter inviting people to Millennium something to the effect of, Hans Jayanti is "the most significant and holy event in history" and "this year it will be celebrated in America" but it is OR since I can't find the source.Momento (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So, let's just leave it at "was billed as" and omit the attribution. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

P3.7
I've posted P3.7. It builds on Joss's 3.4, but doens't attribute the undisputred assertion that the festival was th4 high point (zenith) of Rawat's prominence. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless someone has strong objections substantiated with solid arguments this appears to be ready. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong objections? Have you read what you wrote? The whole thing is as clumsy as it could get and the third sentence doesn't even make sense. But more importantly the assertion that Millenium was some kind of zenith is disputed by the figures released by TPRF. 365,237 people received the Knowledge in 67 countries since 2002. Go figure. Rumiton (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The third sentence is "The failure of the event to meet expectations disappointed many followers." How does that not make sense? As for the festival being the zenith of Rawat's prominence as a guru, he had six million followers then, and he's not a guru now. If we want to get into his later prominence as an inspirational speaker, then the foundaiton statistic may be relevant. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Will, the third sentence is Rawat's eldest brother Satpal Rawat (Bal Bhagwan Ji) and activist Rennie Davis, the main organizers, predicted attendance of 100,000 or more but the event only attracted an estimated at 20,000 and left the group heavily in debt. Read this carefully too. It does not make sense. And TPRF info shows he is still doing what he always did, whether called a guru or not -- teaching people the Knowledge his father taught him. He was always in inspirational speaker, too. Rumiton (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * How can you justify using only a section of Mangalwadi's quote and not the zenith to which Rawat had climbed. It must be in as well, otherwise is just OR.Momento (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of a single complete quote in any citation of a writer - all of the quotes in these articles are excerpts in one way or another. This paragraph is about the Millennium, not about the subject's career in general. I think that including Magalwadi's assertions about the subjects overall rise and fall are appropriate, and I think we should create a paragraph in this section to include that info. But this paragraph is just about the festival. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Since Mangalwadi is voicing an opinion not a fact, it is necessary to explain the context on which M based his opinion. And he does supply the context with his version of zenith and it should be included. Later on we can discuss that, firstly when Rawat was replaced as head of DLM, that following was no longer included as his and he stopped being a "guru" in 1983.Momento (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Context is missing here, e.g. the date in which Mangalwadi made this comment. As for Will's OR about "inspirational speaker" that is exactly that. The same Techniques of Knowledge that he taught when he was called a "guru" are exactly the same now, so this OR distinction is not relevant. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Is Rawat stilla guru? Is being a guru the same as being an inspiratoinal speaker? I'd say "no" to both questions. If the answers are yes we need to make major changes to the Rawat article or the Guru article. As for the date, I have no objection to adding that to address Jossi's concern. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I do not follow your rationale. He has been speaking and teaching the same, when he was 8 years old, as he is now, regardless of what he was/is called. As for Mangalwadi "zenith" thing, it has to be attributed, if kept in that format/wording. "was described" without saying who is WP:WEASEL. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The source says that the festival was the zenith of Rawat's prominence as a guru. Rawat is no longer a guru, and no longer prominent. Aside from press releases, the only media coverage in the last decade in the U.S. was in a university newspaper. (There's been coverage in the U.K., but for some reason there's no mention of that coverage in the article). So there's really no question that 1973, and the Millennium festival in particular, as the high point of Rawat's prominence. And Mangalwadi isn't the only one who says that. For example, Price 1979 says, "Nineteen seventy-three was the peak year for the mission's activities both in Britain and the United States... Marty 1984: The 'Millennium 73' festival, a test of the guru's popularity, was a failure. Olson 2007: This left the organization deeply in debt, and motivated it to retrench and reorganize. . Do we have any source that puts the high point of Rawat's prominence at some other date? If not then the correct attribution would be to say something like, As of 2007, several scholars and journalists have said that Rawat and his movement reached their greatest prominence in 1973. As for teaching the same thing, at least one source disagrees: Perhaps because of this failure, Maharaji transformed his initial teachings ... (Hunt 2003).  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's just let Mangalwadi speak for himself. The zenith was more popular than any living spiritual figure.Momento (talk) 07:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We've alreay been over that and other editors object to that material. Let's work towards consensus here, rather than perpetuating fights. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think will be able to go forward without Mangalwadi's definition of zenith included. Without it, his quote suggests that the 20,000 attendance at Millennium was the high point of his popularity; when he is really saying the most popular spiritual teacher of all.Momento (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can get all the other editors to agree to including all of what Mangalwadi said, then I won't object. But in the recent past there has been opposition to including that info. Do you dispute that the festival marked zenith of the subject's prominence as a guru? If it wasn't then when was it? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That means that inserting any Mangalwadi lacks consensus.Momento (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Mangalwadi is a reliable source. However we can make the same assertion with other sources. See above. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources still need to be selectively chosen. Mangalwadi disqualifies himself by making an absurd statement (most popular spiritual leader in the world.) We can't jump over this and choose to include what he said in his next breath. He was clearly having a bad day. Rumiton (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No doubt 1973 was the peak year for the Mission but that's not Rawat. And the Millennium festival was no doubt a failure on many levels but again that's am organizational failure not Rawat's. The key thing is that after Rawat split from his mother he downsized DLM and got married. The marriage rift meant that India DLM's 5 million followers were no longer counted as Rawat's. And Rawat stopped giving interviews and dropped from sight. So his "popularity" which was "more popular than anyone" couldn't go any higher and reduced as he stepped back from public events.Momento (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. 1973 was the high point in prominence for Rawat because after that he dropped from sight. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No 1973 was the high point of prominence for US DLM. Rawat's high point of popular "popularity" was probably getting married in 1974. And in terms of followers, he still had India. The marriage gained more newspaper inches than Millennium which was only notable in the U.S. So the correct understanding would be something like "In 1974 Rawat married and began dismantling DLM and reduced his public exposure by avoiding the media."Momento (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Between 10,000 and 25,000 people attended the festival, which was covered by a number of notable journalists. The wedding was attended by a dozen or so people and only reported by the wire services. What's your source for the wedding getting more column inches than the Millennium festival? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Are we now researchers measuring column inches? The issue is not notoriety, but rather prominence. In any case, as these are value judgments, any such opinions have to be attributed≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The point I was getting at is that in Mangalwadi's opinion, the Rawat was the most popular spiritual leader in the world at the time of Millennium but there isn't a suggestion that his decline in popularity had anything to do with Millennium. So the Millennium section should include "he qwas most popular spiritual leader in the world at Millennium". Any other thoughts of Mangalwadi about Rawat's popularity or lack of should go in a later section. PS. I've just become aware that Mangalwadi is a prominent evangelical christian. It look to me that his opinions, like all the other Christian scholars - Schnabel, Derks, Van der Lans, Hummel, Kranenborg, Wim Haan - belong in their own section.Momento (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Schnabel was an Evangelical Protestant or Christian, but there is some merit in considering grouping these that are. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're correct about Schnabel, Jossi. Using all these sources without a clear explanation of where they're coming from is too biased. I'm still wanting to create an "Opposition and Criticism" section that will incorporate the opinions of writers like the above who are active members of different religion.Momento (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Criticism by actively involved Christians in the 70s does seem to have an identifiable flavour. Yes, now that article length does not seem to be a consideration, I think a separate church response section would be appropriate. Rumiton (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good point Rumiton re Church. It is not just that these scholars are Christian, most of them are agents of the Church. Bit like choosing Basque separatists to be the majority of sources for an article on Spain.Momento (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Status of this proposal
What is holding us back with this proposal? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If there are no further objections I propose we post P3.7. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That prop. is missing attribution for the last sentence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've re-written the line and added attribtion. It now reads: "The festival was later described by various writers as the high point of the movement or the guru in the U.S.[60][61]" Is that sufficient? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We've given 6 lines to Rawat and the customs incident and barely 4 to Millennium. I've expanded it as prop 8.Momento (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

P3.8
Momento, the version you just posted is virtually identical to the material that's already in the article. The reason we're trying to give less space to the festival in this article is that we cover it at great length in the DLM article. You've mentioned your concerns about the legnth of the artile again and again, so we should take opportunities to trim redundant material wherever we can. Nothing you've added back to the proposal isn't already in the DLM article. Let me ask you, do you endorse the idea of having a shorter veriosn here or are you going to keep insisting on retaining the version you wrote? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I find it amusing (concerning?) that any edit that includes material that is somewhat critical of the mother and elder brother, are always the edits challenged by some editors, while material that is critical of PR is not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is about PR, not PR's mother and brother. We include critical material about them in the DLM article, which covers the Millennium festival in detail. This article is just about Prem Rawat, aso we should keep the focus on him. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments about his family are relevant to the extent that they were operating in support of his aims. Their reportedly poor performance in their roles is therefore notable. [personal attack redacted]More is better now. See Proposal 9. Rumiton (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please retract that personal attack. It is uncalled for. I am making a good faith effort to improve this article. If you persist in making remarks like that I will ask for sanctions. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't help seeing it that way, Will. I believe you need to look hard at your intentions re this article. You have changed your interpretations of Wikipedia's rules constantly, depending on whether the suggested inclusion suits your views. This turnaround on article length is just the latest. On the other hand, if you really do want to trim these articles I am all in favor of it. Start with the house and the fire brigade. Rumiton (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You may see things any way you like, but when you post comments on Wikipedia they must be civil. WP:CIVIL. Civility is a requirement, not an option. I see that despite my request you have not withdrawn your remark, so I've refactored it. If you make uncivil comments about editors again I will ask for sanctions. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You should ask an uninvolved admin to review these comments instead of refactoring them yourself. Fascinating how quick you react to refactoring material, when it is you that is the target of criticism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not quick. I asked the maker of the comment to remove it and he did not. Refactoring uncivil remarks is something that any editor can do. Jossi has removed plenty of remarks from these talk pages, so it's inappropriate for him to condem refactoring by others. Condemning incivility would be helpful, but I guess that's too much to expect given the circumstances. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That was not that "uncivil", IMO. Show me any material that I have refractored from talk in the last year, please. In the recent past I have archived material, but not deleted comments outright. I can remind you of your unwillingness to refactor some of the most obnoxious and repugnant comments that others made, which you witness and all you did was to place a warning in their talk page. So before you try to hold me accountable, hold yourself accountable first. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi, I've seen you delete material from talk pages within the last year. If you ha ve forgotten or wish to deny it then that's your business. Civility is a requirement on this project. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Civility has aspects. We are asked to be civil to the living subjects of biographies too, as they "can be hurt by what we write." This seems to be a point you are determined not to understand. Rumiton (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, please do not make negative personal remarks about other editors or assume bad faith on their part. You've been warned before. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

P3.9

 * I think Prop 9 is the best so far and its length is commensurate with its importance.Momento (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to say everything needed. Comments from others? Rumiton (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is Thomas Pilarzyk classed as a sociologist? Rumiton (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with Prop 9. Any objections?Momento (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It needs a source for ""a rehabilitator of prodigal sons and daughters", but otherwise I can live with it.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How is this an improvement over what's in the article already? I don't see any significant difference. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Me neither. Also, I can't see that there is much wrong with the version we have. Jayen 466 17:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The point of the original proposal was to shorten the material, since it is covered in great detail in the DLM article. All this article needs is a summary. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, summarizing is OK. Removing material and keeping other material arbitrarily is not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing was removed "arbitrarily". ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)