User talk:Steven Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal6

Proposal1
Presumably "Proposal 0" is the current text. What is tht proposed change? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am working on it, see proposal #1 which is not completed yet. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Time to roll my sleeves up :-)

If the purpose of this lead/lede is to summarize this section, including criticism, then I think we first need to discuss/debate the scope of the section before agreeing the actual wording of the lead.

I feel that writing the lead now before agreeing the sections is a bit too ‘top down’. I think that consensus on this very contentious section can only be agreed by painfully agreeing on each sub-section first, then producing the lead based on the agreed sub-sections.

However, the rest of my comments cover the ‘top down’ approach of agreeing the lead first, should other editors feel that this should become the agreed approach.

My initial reaction to Proposal 1 is that it purely summarizes a narrow range of very academic material, whilst the material in this section is much broader. I suggest that we first agree the key areas of ‘reception’, then ensure that the lead section fairly reflects this consensus and the section itself.

My first stab/brainstorm of key points to consider includes:


 * Early success/growth of movement, especially internationally (in existing proposal)
 * Counterpoint of decline after peak growth.
 * Lack of intellectual content
 * Focus on practical teachings as counterpoint to above point
 * ‘Sumptuous’ lifestyle (or other words to reflect this point)
 * Perception of divine nature and/or religious/supernatural claims
 * Skeptical / rationalist counterpoint to above point
 * Anti Rawat movement (if accepted as notable)
 * Claims relating to brainwashing/deprogramming and related counterpoints

Of course this is too much for a 2 sentence lead to this section, so would appreciate any suggestions of how to summarize the essence of this section. Savlonn (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not sure this approach would work, as it would mean to leave the rest of the article solely for biographical information. I would prefer to use the current approach in which biographical aspects are intervened with other narratives and viewpoints not necessarily biographical per se. This section, as it stands now, could focus on salient aspects related on how he was/is received, hence the name of the section. That is, significant opinions across the board about these aspects. Having said that, and as this is a proposal page, you can start a new section and develop content and suitable subsections as you have described above. As time progresses, we may merge different portions, conflate others, create new ones, etc. So, roll your sleeves indeed! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Just about everyone who has written about the subject could be added to this section. "Salient aspects" is a broad mandate. I hope editors are prepared for this to grow very large. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No necessarily, Will. I am re-reading the sources and there is specific material that can be used. Not all material is suitable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What material is unsuitable, in your opinion? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Tons. You can give it a try by reading some of 50-odd sources that we have used in the article and will easily spot what may be useful for this section and what would not. That is what I am doing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said before I see lots, maybe even "tons", of sources that could be used for this section. You say that some are unsuitable. I'm asking why and which ones. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, I am re-reading and adding material that I find fits this section and discarding what I think is not. I would argue my additions, but will not argue text that I am not adding. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying that there are many, many sources that discuss Rawat's reception. You've said that not all of those are suitable but have refused to give any explanation. Fair enough. But don't be surprised at seeing proposals that include far more sources than P6.1. Furthmore, it appears that P6.1 wold delete a large amout of imformation if it entirely replaces P6.0. Deleting that previously-agreed upon material is not likely to gain a consensus.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note the [...] at the end of Proposal #1, denoting that I will be adding more material from the existing version as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Let us know when you're done and ready for input. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * However I'd suggest taking this one subsection at a time. Its going to be harder to edit and gain consensus for two or more sections at once. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Let "us" know? Do you represent a specific faction, or something? You are welcome to comment as these proposals are developed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Us", the other editors. Are you finished with Propsoal 1 or are you still developing it? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you miss the tag at the top of my proposal? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's new. I suggest again breaking the proposal down into smaller pieces. We spent over 16,000 words of discussion before agreeing on the roughly 190 words in Proposal 1. This proposal is already nearly 900 words long. Do we want to spend 90,000 words discussing it? Why not just take it a paragraph at a time? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to big, IMO. I will continue working of the material for the section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Structure
I'm not discouraging that the content be worked on, expanded, trimmed, rearranged, or improved in whatever way or negotiated in whatever appropriate place, with future consensus for other subsection headers (on the contrary, and I'd play an active role there too!), but here's my proposal, for the time being, with the current content and arrangement:
 * ==Reception==
 * Following (remains)
 * Media → Media coverage
 * Authority → Charisma and leadership
 * Critical viewpoints → Rawat's students
 * (new, after Schnabel/VdLans para and before Barbour para:) Former followers

(copied here per Savlonn's suggestion at Talk:Prem Rawat --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC))


 * I agree, and would like to focus here on creating this structure, and agreeing scope of the 'Reception' section, ideally keeping the discussion at a high level initially to avoid getting bogged down too early in disputes about specific sources.


 * The first question I would like to discuss is: How much emphasis should be placed on having all related material under a broad 'Reception' section, as opposed to blending material into the main article? The two extremes are to have all subjective material here, and to completely remove the section and have all material blended into the chronographically arranged sections. I know this has been discussed ad-infinitum previously, so feel free to reference previous discussions. The difference this time is that hopefully the structured mediation framework will enable some consensus to be reached.


 * My opinion is that we need to have a fairly broad section here, as much of Rawat's notability is in respect to people's opinions of him personally, as opposed to his teachings and movement. To put it bluntly, the very polarized opinions of the editors here makes the case in point, though of course representing an insignificant minority. However, it does make sense in some cases to blend material where there is a strong correlation with a specific event or timeframe referenced in the rest of the biography. For example, we already have the rapid growth and subsequent decline of the movement (and thus Rawat's popularity) referred to in another section, so there is no need to repeat it here.


 * In addition to the sections nominated by Francis above, I would like to see a reference to perceptions and/or claims of divinity by his followers. Savlonn (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd have that topic included in the "Rawat's students" subsection. I think it would make excellent sense in such section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The proposed structure does not work for me; (a) Media, is too generic; We do not have a section called "Books" for example, event if we hare quoting from books, are we? (b) "Following" can contain material for students, numbers, as well as any suitable information about vocal critics. (c) Former followers does not deserve a separate section, any such material can be included in "Following". Again I do not see how we can discuss structure without the content, it seems to me to be strange, very strange.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Jossis's points about "Following". Right now that section is narrowly focused on numbers of followers. I think that focus should be kept. "Vocal critics" should not be added to it. In general, I think that material should be kept as chronological as possible, and we should keep the non-chronological material to a minimum (which may still be a large minimum). I don't understand Francis' division between "students" and "former followers" - why not merge those and use them to include viewpoints of current and former students/followers? Overall, this mostly seems to divide up folks and then give their views. I think it's better to cover topics and give all views on those topics, as we do in the Authority/Charisma section. Can we pick out topics that get significant commentary, and create subsections on those instead? Regarding Jossi's last point, the benefit of working on structure first is to see what to research, what content to find. Picking out certain content will tend to support having a certain structure, whether intentional or not. Until we agree on what topics to cover we can't easily agree on what content we use to cover those topics.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * How about we try going one level down to bullet pointing the main areas of content proposed for each sub-section. This will provide some context for the proposed structure of this section. I have made a quick attempt to summarise Proposal 1 as an example. However, it would be much better if Jossi did this in his own words for the purpose of any serious discussion. Again, I have just done this as an example. (maybe we should use the templates for this?)


 * Reception Lead
 * Strong following from counterculture in 1971-73
 * Perception of divinity from followers
 * Rawat later renounced ‘Guru’ title and position
 * ‘Banal’ speech in 1974
 * Charisma & Leadership
 * as per proposal 2)
 * Following
 * Early growth and later decline of movement
 * More on perception of divinity and later renouncement
 * Public Image
 * DLM stating that media discriminating against Rawat based on age/wealth/physical appearance
 * Public Appearances, honors & Awards
 * 1 Million people at procession in New Delhi at age 12
 * Received ‘keys to the city’ (list of cities)


 * Now we can debate the structure without getting too hung up yet on specifics.
 * In this case, the four main heading titles (not including lead) are either neutral or positive. There’s no ‘critical viewpoints’ sub-section. As per the discussion over the last few months, that simply isn’t going to fly. Specifically, there’s nothing about the anti-Rawat movement and no reference to Rawat’s sumptuous lifestyle. Etc, etc, etc…


 * The whole point is that with this approach we can have a very pragmatic debate about the structure and what is fair balance/weighting, hopefully in days instead of weeks, without stopping the whole show getting caught up in debate about the details and appropriate sources, etc. Yes – all that needs to happen, but I feel we can get there much faster with this approach. Savlonn (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with this approach - it's better to start with an outline. However I think this proposed outline puts too much into the reception section that should be in the main article. For example:
 * Rawat later renounced ‘Guru’ title and position
 * ‘Banal’ speech in 1974
 * DLM stating that media discriminating against Rawat based on age/wealth/physical appearance
 * Public Appearances, honors & Awards
 * These all appear to be topics that can be handled chronologically. Why include them in "Reception" rather than in the chronology of the article? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Will, is your last point directed at Jossi or myself? Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to propose my idea of an outline for this section, but was attempting to objectively summarize Jossi's Proposal 1 into an example outline. Please disregard if your point was directed at Jossi. I envisaged that others would follow debate by creating their own versions of outlines for discussions - (perhaps using the proposal templates).Savlonn (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the outline. Perhaps Jossi can explain his thinking in creating this outline. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Trying to have some quality time with family. Will respond in a day or two. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

<<< Some of the material in my proposal can be easily incorporated into the chronology, and we should consider that as an option. The only material that would not fit, would be "Charisma and leadership", "Following". So we may need to revisit this. Ideas? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ideas for what? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't get it? There is material in my proposal (that by the way it is not close to be completed) that could easily be placed in the chronology. So I am asking for ideas on how to address this editorial dilemma: Should all material that is time-sensitive be placed in the chronology, leaving other aspects that are not in the "Reception" section? Should the "Reception section" expand on existing chronological material? SHould the "Reception" section be also chronological. etc, etc. All editorial decisions, that in my view would be better discussed once we have new material for this section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that this article, like all biographies, is best organized chronologically. Material which neither discusses a particular period or event, or which weren't notable when they were published, is the only kind that should be relegated to topical sections at the end. However, that means that editors need to accomodate sometimes critical material throughout the article. We've already seen in some other proposals that editors say things like "no opinions". Well, opinions belong in the article and if editors don't want a "criticism" section then they have to accept negative material elsewhere. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This might be an excellent time for all of us to refresh our understanding of the stringent requirements of biographies of living persons, the letter and the spirit thereof. 15:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what Will is saying. The article already includes negative/critical material throughout the chronology. I do not understand also what is this argument of "no opinions" when we actually have plenty of scholarly opinions throughout the article already. I still look forward for ideas from others about what to do with this "Reception" section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * That's what I'm referring to. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not know why you bring this up here, as I do not see any such comments from Momento in this discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I posted that quote because you seemed to be unaware that opinions were being discouraged by active editors of this article. My point is that we either have a criticism cestion, or we allow critical material throughout the article. Do we all agree that it's better to mix the critical material? or do people prefer to have a criticism section? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We already have critical material throughout the article, so I do not know why you are asking about "allowing critical materials throughout the article". Please re-read the article. And if other material is presented to be considered for inclusion, it will need to be done in the context of a balanced and neutral article, as per WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:BLP, not just WP:RS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We have a very small amount of criticism in the article, and there is much more to consider adding. Dogmatic assertions that we should only have facts instead of opinions are inappropriate. Opinions, aka viewpoints, are a vital part of NPOV. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We have a very small amount of criticism in the article, I would strongly disagree with your opinion. There is abundant criticism already in the article. This is a biography of a living person, not a WP:COATRACK ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

<<<< I do not think it is very useful to make general and/or blanket comments about content, structure, etc without the content. There is only one way to do this and it is by creating and developing content. Only when you have content and you bring it to discussion (as we did with the content about charisma) it is useful. I would simply ignore theoretical conversations not supported by proposals that submit content. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Saul V. Levine
There are some writings by Saul V. Levine which might add some counterpoint to material provided in Prop2. Levine is not from the sociological school of thought, rather, he's a psychiatrist who has studied and written papers/articles on NRMs/cult, including DLM. Not all scholars are sociologists of NRMs/cult. Some, like Margaret Singer, were/are clinical psychologists and psychiatrists who offer a different perspective than the group represented in the article. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please provide some prose (with refs) of what you propose to be included in the Prem Rawat article. Also indicate where you think it can be incluced. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Galanter is also not a sociologist, and we are using him in ths and related articles. Levine wrote one article in a 1989 book edited by Galanter, called "Cults and New Religious Movements". I do not see there anything that has not been covered already, besides making some general comments about the DLM being "vilified" and "held in low esteem", but nothing specific about Prem Rawat besides a comment about how parents see religious leaders living in "offensive opulence". Note that Levine advocates in his conclusion to his article for "the prosecution and persecution" of groups. Clearly Levine is a person with strong opinions about non-mainstream religious groups that cannot be ignored when assessing this source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If we have reliable sources that characterize Levine's "strong opinions" then we can refer to them. (I wouldn't say that calling for the prosecution of groups that break the law, and tolerance for those that don't, is an especially strong opinion.) Sources don't need to be neutral. As for the general point, we need to be sure we differentiate Rawat form the DLM. Commentary about them belongs in their respective articles. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, Will. After thinking about it, I realized that if Levine were used, it would be more appropriate in DLM article.  Sylviecyn (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

P6.2
Who is the author of the material on prem-rawat.org? Are there no 3rd-party sources for these assertions? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the website of the Prem Rawat Foundation, Rawat received the keys to the cities of New York City, New Orleans, Oakland, Kyoto, Detroit, Miami Beach, Miami, and Quito, as well as numerous resolutions and proclamations from state and federal government officials in the US. http://prem-rawat.org/
 * The author is The Prem Rawat Foundation, the official website of that organization (see copyright notice bottom right). Added per WP:SELFQUEST ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So we don't know who actually wrote it? This material appears to violate WP:SELFQUEST because it is unduly self-serving and because there is reasonable doubt about who authored it. Are there no 3rd-party sources for these assertions? If not I think it's better left out. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:06, 17 June 2008
 * (a) There is no reasonable doubt that this is an official website, same as if you would quote from a page at www.apple.com. (b) It is not unduly self-serving, unless you think that receiving a Freedom of the City is self-serving . This material is entirely appropriate for a biographical article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Making claims of awards and honors is self-serving. We don't know who the author is. It's not even clear what relationship Rawat has to TPRF, which would mean that if it's not his website then we can't use it at all. The TPRF website may be a usable as a source for itself, the article about that organization, but it's not Rawat's website so it can't be used about him. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That argument is specious. Prem Rawat is the founder of that charitable organization, which carries his name. Most definitively usable material. As for your opinion that receiving a Freedom of the City is self-serving, that is simply incorrect. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If claiming to have received an honor isn't self-serving then please explain what is. As for using TPRF for Rawat, I don't see his name on the list of board members so his actual connection to the foundation isn't clear. We don't know the author of the material. I think it's unusable for this BLP, which requires the highest standards of sourcing. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It could not be clearer. The TPRF site clearly credits him with inspiring their work and for founding the organisation (The Foundation, which he founded, provides nutritious food and clean water... etc.) It is getting harder to keep patience with your stubborn mean-spiritedness. Rumiton (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Without sounding too sarcastic, it seem that highest standard of sourcing only applies for material that is somewhat positive. In any case, a "sef-serving" statement would be "Mr. XYZ is the most accomplished guitar player in the world" in the article about Jeff Beck, sourced to his site. The connection may not be clear to you, but he is the founder of the foundation as outlined in their site. Many founders of charities do not sit in the boards, so that should not be a problem. I placed a generic question at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Jossi your argument is absurd. If Rawat actually founded TPRF – there is no public documentation to show that he did – but even if he did, TPRF would not be cast in some proprietary mould where it could speak as if it were Prem Rawat in person. TPRF is a public foundation not a representative of Rawat, therefore anything on TPRF can not be regarded as Rawat WP:SELFQUEST. The judgement then is, whether TPRF is an acceptable source for what is otherwise a claim unsupported by any independent source. It hardly seems so. If TPRF were a Private Trust or even a for profit corporation where Rawat was identified as a beneficiary or major shareholder, then WP:SELFQUEST might apply, as it would if Rawat was a board member at TPRF, other public charity or for profit corporation, as it is none of these circumstances apply. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think your argument is absurd, and specious to boot. WP:SELFQUEST does not apply here, as that section of the policyt page refers to "unduly self-serving" and I cannot see how this would apply to a Freedom of the City award. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The Keys website statistics

 * Actual source states As of May 2008, Key Six sessions have been held in 621 cities in 67 countries in the last eight years. The Key Six session is available in 68 languages and has been attended by 365,237 people during that period.


 * Proposed text states In 2002, Prem Rawat established The Keys, a new DVD-based system for describing his message and teaching the Knowledge techniques. According to the Keys website 7 since the Keys inception, 365,237 people have been taught the techniques of Knowledge. Key 6 (the Knowledge Session) has been shown in 67 countries in 68 languages (May 2008).


 * 1. The source says ‘Key Six sessions have been held in 621 cities in 67 countries in the last eight years.’ Yet the Keys were only established in 2002 ?


 * 2. The statement that “The Key Six session is available in 68 languages and has been attended by 365,237 people during that period.” is of dubious value – a similar statement might be: the earth has seven continents. 6 billion humans live on these continents. The fact that one of those continents has only a few hundred people temporarily encamped upon it devalues the construction of  “6 billion humans live on these continents”. because it suggests a possibility of millions of people living on every continent.


 * We cannot know because the Rawat movement will not say, but with a concentration of his existing following being in India, the probability is that the vast majority of these claimed 365,237 people who’ve watched a video (is watching a video in itself something significant ?) live in India. Whether 360,000 Indians watching a video is or is not significant, the casting of a particular majority in the role of the whole, would be not encyclopaedic and there is no way to know that is not what the quoted statistics are doing. Given that the source is merely a self promotion on/by a website whose ownership is obscure, how on earth can this be considered trustworthy ?--Nik Wright2 (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What kind of arguments are these? All it is said there is that since the inception of Key Six, which is the way people are taught the techniques of Knowledge since the year 2000 (I do not know where the year 2002 comes from, not from that source certainly), 365,237 people have been taught the techniques of Knowledge, and that these sessions have been held in 621 cities in 67 countries. If these people are Indians or Anglo-Saxon, who cares? Unless there is a certain bias here that Indians are second-class human beings, I do not see why that question is even raised. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi I do hope that you are not intending to inpute Racist intent on my part, I said nothing about race so I am unclear why you refer to such notions. The operation of Rawat's promotion happens on nationally distinct terms - India having a different organisational structure than the US for example. Further there is sound data that Rawat's following in India has historically far exceeded that in any other country, and the way in which which thekeys are promoted there is acknowledged by the country specific promoter to be different than, for example the US. The use of statistics in an encyclopaedia should make details clearer, not obfuscate them.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * People are people are people. No one other than you have made an argument for discriminating these numbers. The Keys site is available to anyone, and anyone can register. They do not make any distinction about people's country of origin (why should they?). So, if what your wrote could be construed as racist, do not blame in on me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ownership is obscure? See and this  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the full text in that page:

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Which page? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I support the inclusion of the first sentence: "As of May 2008, Key Six sessions have been held in 621 cities in 67 countries in the last eight years."  and agree with Jossi that this information on the official website is no less credible than (say) Apple announcing 10 Million iPhone sales. However I don't support the 'available in 68 languages' as this is just marketing; it is not the availability of this information that is statistically notable, but the number of people choosing to participate. If we can just keep to the facts, then this provides the reader with an indicator of Rawat's current popularity, and provides balance to the criticism without being too promotional (IMO).Savlonn (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree about the 68 languages. I left it off my suggested addition. Rumiton (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if only 20 people attended in Tuvalu, the fact that these sessions were arranged and went ahead in 67 countries is significant. Savlonn (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Added As of May 2008, Key Six sessions have been held in 621 cities in 67 countries in the last eight years, and has been attended by 365,237 people during that period ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To be NPOV that should be attributed to the source. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * According this article as it stands, The Keys weren't even produced by Prem Rawat until 2005. How does that consititute 8 years of "Key 6?"  Additionally, If there's to be a link to The Keys website in this article, it should be noted that anyone who accesses The Keys website, and decides to register, they must agree to these terms and conditions, which if violated, do not hold a registrant harmless from legal action against them by this NRM and one wonders if permission from TPRF needs to be obtained prior to using any of its website material here:


 * Terms and Conditions


 * I understand that the material on this website is private and proprietary, through copyright and/or common law rights, belonging to The Prem Rawat Foundation ("TPRF") and its agents and assigns.
 * I understand and agree that by accessing this material I am entering an agreement that I will not copy, redistribute, or publicly display anything on this website or on any discs obtained through this website.
 * I also understand and agree that my purpose for accessing this website and any related material is limited solely to my personal interest in Maharaji’s Knowledge, and by agreeing, I expressly waive any rights I may believe I have in terms of creating commentary, research, or any other “fair use” purposes.
 * I also agree that, should my interest in learning the techniques of Knowledge change at any time, this agreement is perpetual in length, and that upon such change, I will return any such material to The Prem Rawat Foundation.
 * I understand that by agreeing to these Terms and Conditions, I will be given a password and user ID, which I agree not to disclose to any third person for any reason.
 * I understand that the practice of Knowledge does not prevent, cure, or treat any medical or mental illness and does not prevent the recurrence of any illness once it has been treated.
 * I understand that some unresolved mental and emotional health problems may interfere with the ability to make choices related to asking for, practicing, and enjoying Knowledge. As far as I am aware, I am free from any conditions that would impair my ability to ask for, practice, and enjoy Knowledge.
 * I agree to the Terms and Conditions, and that I am being given permission to access the material contained (on this website), but that this permission can be revoked. TPRF reserves the right to issue/delete Personal Access Numbers and access to this website at its own discretion and without notice. I also understand that if I breach this agreement, I may face legal penalties and agree that such legal disputes can be resolved in the Courts of the State of California. I also understand that if I breach the Terms and Conditions, I may be liable for damages and attorneys fees.   Sylviecyn (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a fair point Sylvie. We may need to get permission from TPRF before adding any of this to Wikipedia.
 * As background, the video Knowledge Session was actually produced in around 1999, and started to be used then. It was renamed Key 6 in around 2005 when the other Keys (1 - 5) were produced to accompany it, but it is the same video. The 356 000 figure appears to be the total since 2000. The Knowledge preparation process is far greater than "just watching a video." There was always a preparatory program and now around 50 hours of material in Keys 1 - 5 have to be viewed before Key 6. This should be easily confirmable by TPRF, bearing in mind the above. Rumiton (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The subject being talked above is accessible without the need for any login (its a https page though). Extracting content that may otherwise be present on login would cause trouble. This may not. --Taxed123 (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What happened to Jossi's reply? It's misleading for the Key's website to now call the 1999 Knowledge Session DVD "Key 6" when it wasn't called "Key 6" until 2005.  That alone blurs the statistic enough to exclude it from the article.  If TPRF and Rawat wanted to be clearer, they should write the statement more clearly.  This is an encyclopedia, not a guessing game, plus TPRF's "The Keys" website is a primary source.  Are there any other sources for this statistical information?  I also wanted to point out the extremely unusual criteria for someone wanting to register on The Keys website (which has nothing in common with any other website I've ever come across on the interent, especially Microsoft Corp., which Jossi refered to in his now-deleted post to me here), because of it's disclaimer about mental health.  That's just downright peculiar, imo.  I think readers should be informed that if they do want to register at that website that they should be warned that they're going to be required to sign-off on issues concerning their mental health, that is, if Wikipedia is going to allow Prem Rawat to promote The Keys here.  Children and young adults do read this website.  Additionally, out of 6 billion people in the world, 300K people isn't even worth a mention.  It doesn't even register as a percentage on my calculator.    Sylviecyn (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We are only reporting what that website say, no more, no less. As for the percentage argument, we are reporting other numbers as well, so what is the problem? As for the "registration" issue you are raising here, it does no apply as per arguments presented. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the website a reliable source? It seems odd to attribute information to an anonymous website. At the the TPRF has a board of directors. Who is in charge of the "Keys" website? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Anonymous? How can you call a website that is (per the links provided e.g. and this ) the property of the Prem Rawat Foundation, a legal entity registered in the US, to be "anonymous"? Would you say that Apple.com, or www.friendsofwfp.org are also "anonymous"? I think that your later arguments are becoming quite strange, Will. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It it's owned by the TPRF then the assertions should be attributed to the TPRF. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's easy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Our article Teachings of Prem Rawat says:
 *  In 2005, Prem Rawat introduced "The Keys", a program of five DVD's which prepare the student for receiving Knowledge. 
 * Is that inaccurate? It's unsourced, so shall we delete it? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Apple analogy: The analogy with Apple is only of very limited scope. Apple Corp. is regulated by Governments around the globe, it has to produce audited accounts which relate directly to its products and it is subject to intense analysis by economists, traders and journalists, further its products are subject to strict technical regulation, all of which provides an intense oversight of the validity of any claim made by Apple. In contrast thekeys process is of unclear ownership, there is assertion of copyright by TPRF, but TPRF does not adopt responsibility for the quality of the product/service, nor does it claim to be the provider of the product/service, even in the US, let alone the other 67 countries where TPRF has no legal standing. The analogy with Apple might be argued to extend to a ‘reseller’ arrangement, however in the case of Apple trading data would be available to verify any claims that Apple made about units sold in Tuvalu or Tiblisi. No such supporting data exists for the claims made by TPRF, which frankly could make up any numbers it wants and no one would have any reference point to judge their validity.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we use caveats such as 'claimed' and 'unverified' to convey that this is unaudited information?
 * I still think this is notable information, and I haven't seen any claims that it is grossly inaccurate or fabricated; only that it is unverified and from a primary source.      I am applying the same principle here as with criticism; that we use the best source available as long as it meets qualifying criteria, even if it isn't an ideal source from  an independent 3rd party. In this case, the website appears to be the only source for this material. Savlonn (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * However, having just written the above, I now have one concern that I didn't consider when I earlier made my case to support the inclusion of this material. The website states exactly' that 365,237 people attended. This implies that they must have a rigorous method for assuring the accuracy of this data to 6 decimals. Therefore, it should be their prerogative to demonstrate how they came to such an exact number. If the website had claimed that 'more than' or 'approximately' 350,000 people had attended, then this wouldn't be a problem. We can't generalize; that would be OR, so we have to take that exact number or leave it out. We can't put that number in the article with its implication of great confidence/accuracy without understanding how the confidence in that number was derived. Savlonn (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We could place an inquire in their ticketing system if this need clarification. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If people are asked to register to get The Keys and have to send a request to participate ion a Key Six session as desc ribed in that page, there must be very easy to keep stats for attendance. I do not see why this would be such a big deal or difficult to tally. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Chronological inconsistency in ownership, authorship and liability for thekeys and thekeys promotional material -
 * 1. thekeys Key6 video is said to date from 1999/2000
 * 2. the website maharaji.net was registered August 1998 (current registration is listed with TPRF)
 * 3. TPRF was created in 2002
 * Given that the Key6 video is a product that existed at least two years before the creation of TPRF and that the maharji.net website was created four year before TPRF, the question of ownership is not clear. Beyond an assertion of copyright no statement appears on either the TPRF or maharji.net websites which explains what relationship there is between TPRF and a) the authors/creators of thekeys and b) the authors/collectors of data about how thekeys are used by third parties. Even if it is concluded on the basis of copyright assertion that TPRF is the publisher/operator of the thekeys process, there is no source which links ownership of the operation of thekeys (and the collection of statistics) by third parties. Without clear ownership of the data TPRF can not be considered a reputable source.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Use of Key6. There cannot be a direct linkage between "taught Knowledge" and the viewing of the Key6 video, it has been widely used also for what Rawat calles 'Knowledge Reviews' - existing followers getting an update in case they forgot something. The proposal 2 text is misleading in that it could be seen as suggesting that 365,237 have viewed the Key6 video as an 'initiation' - that is not what the source says.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I mean, this is unbelievable... why in the earth some people here get so worked up for such a simple statement and a few numbers? The text there is very clear: It states that over the last 8 years a number of people attended the Key Six session. If someone has questions about what does that mean, we could simply ask a question in their support ticket system. For me, it is very clear, 300K+ people have received the techniques of Knowledge in the last eight years. What is the big deal? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The 'Big Deal' is not that 300K+ people have attended, but the claim that 365,237 have attended as of a particular date. Using this precise number has a qualitative as well as quantitative implication; it implies "We have have very accurate information as to exactly how many people have attended, so you can trust this number". They didn't have a little * disclaimer next to the number with some fine print referring to the number the tickets allocated in their system. In fact, they don't refer to the number of tickets allocated, but actual attendance. Effectively, publishing such a precise number has raised the bar for proving the validity of this information to support the implied claim of high quality.
 * The analogy is quoting a statement that the speed of light is approximately 300,000 km/s, vs quoting a statement that the speed of light is 299,792.458 km/s. The first quote could probably stand on its own, but the 2nd is a much higher quality claim and would require a reference to the source of this claim.
 * Maybe we can compromise by putting a general statement in the article body, such as "The official Prem Rawat web site claims that a large number of people have received 'The Knowledge' in recent years through global 'Six Keys' sessions" and then reference the statistical claim from the website in the reference section? Savlonn (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "large" is an ambiguous statement, when we have detailed numbers. As I said, we can simply make an inquiry and find out, but even without it, the fact that they quote a specific number is significant as of itself. What we could do is to say "more than 300,00 people" and that would be OK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, "large" doesn't cut it at all, and just putting the given number in as a reference isn't quite honest. To some, 57 might be "large," and most would not check the refs. I think that TPRF's giving the number to 6 significant figures does indeed imply that they have very good data. It is their organisation, and unless we have good reason to doubt their methods, I believe we can accept their figures and the article should show them. Rumiton (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also something like "300,000 plus" or "large number" looks more of advertisement/emphasis on popularity. Speaking to the numbers would be a a direct point without making judgements about them. --Taxed123 (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Media perceptions
I suggest that Downton summarized the Millennium press conference best: "Representatives of the press became quite hostile to the guru in his first press conference, charging that his answers to their questions were flippant and arrogant." Also, "...representataive of the media were angered, not impressed, by what they saw and heard." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need to attribute a factual statement like this, and there are several sources that mention various people covering the event. The list of notables attending includes We don't need to list them all, of course, but the existing text doesn't summarize the information well. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 *  In a December 1973 article for the New York Review of Books, Francine du Plessix Gray names several reporters that attended the Millennium '73 event: Ken Kelley covering the events for Ramparts, Marjoe Gortner for Oui, and Paul Krassner for The Realist.[68]
 * Robert Scheer
 * James Downton
 * Jerry Rubin
 * Paul Krassner
 * Abbie Hoffman
 * Robert Greenfield
 * Annie Leibowitz
 * Marilyn Webb
 * Marjoe Gortner
 * Michael Shamberg
 * Nicholas von Hoffman
 * Bob Larson
 * Loudon Wainwright III
 * Kerry Fitzgerald
 * John Sinclair (poet)
 * Jeff Nightbyrd
 * Tx for the suggestions:
 * Re. "hostile": both Pilzaryk and Levine mention "hostility": Pilzaryk for youth culture press (in general), Levine for Rawat (at the M'73 press conference). Though Downton's summary seem adequate, I don't see what it would add. Also, if taking the context, the Rawat-Media situation was already "stressed" before the press conference began (from both sides, e.g. the Halley pie incident - Halley was a reporter - and the PR staff meeting): Downton's "became quite hostile" as if the M'73 press conference was the start doesn't do justice to the situation imho.
 * Re. "flippant": it is very prominent in the Newsweek correspondent's intervention, as filmed in Lord of the Universe. I tried to avoid peacock terms, if the same message can be transferred without them. For me using "flippant" would be OK though, just trying to be careful.
 * Re. "angered": Well, some probably were. The Newsweek correspondent in the end says he wasn't. So let's not generalise.
 * Re. which ones to name: I'd only name media people in the section that is about Rawat and the media. It was a bit "wrapped" in the du Plessix Gray quote, resulting from a discussion we had on another page: quoting an acceptable secondary source is OK, we may assume that author selected those most notable for the context. Don't let that stop you from having a go, based on the sources you think most significant.
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This edit is mainly OR, the source provided not supporting that text. If proposals are to be taken seriously, the text needs to stay close to the sources, and the sources impeccable. Otherwise, what is the point? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I see a lot of sources in that paragraph. What material is original research? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This: 'Tensions with the press were far from over when they started reporting about the financial deficit of Millennium 73, the family rift, Rawat's marriage, the Malibu estate and heliport, and the defection of significant adherents over the next few years. By the early 1980s the popular press largely ignored Rawat and his movement The source provided for all that text is Ref #22 (Melton) which does not contain any of that text. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward
Are we in an impasse? Are there any proposals to try and bridge the differences between the different proposals on the table? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would hope not. Impasse isn't a word I like too much ;). I think there is an ability to reach a compromise of sorts. Let's see if something can be reached. I notice that the mediation hasn't been as active as of recent, this is probably my fault, due to the recent "fiasco" with me. If that's the case, I apologise. Steve Crossin   (contact)  15:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This propsoal is too large, with too many different revisions and additions being proposed at once. I suggest working on smaller pieces. It'd be much easier to find agreement on one paragraph then on a dozen. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed this section is too big to do as one item. The various debates for different paragraphs would be a bit chaotic IMO. I am agnostic as to doing them one section at a time, or splitting each paragraph into separate sandbox discussions. (back in 10 days - going to Tenerife :-)Savlonn (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Draft 3 - Media perceptions
... includes material that it is already being discussed for inclusion in other proposals, or already included in other sections of the article itself. This subsection, as far as I can gather from discussions in other proposals, is no longer viable as presented on this draft. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest creating proposals for each subsection separately. Six at once is too many to reach consensus. It's easier to deal with them one at a time. Since there is little or no overlap, there's no need to edit them all together. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Started User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal9 (Media) --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)