Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Prem Rawat

Who are the involved parties?

 * User:Will Beback
 * User:Jossi
 * User:Momento
 * User:Jayen466
 * User:Rumiton
 * User:Msalt
 * user:Maelefique
 * user:Nik Wright2
 * user:Sylviecyn
 * user:John Brauns
 * User:PatW
 * User:Francis Schonken

What's going on?

 * Numerous disputes about certain sources used in the article; unresolved issues related to merges of related articles. See Talk:Divine_Light_Mission
 * Article ownership, tag teaming, editorializing, cherry-picking of quotes, and tendentious editing
 * Note that the article is now under community-enforced 1RR probation, and that an ArbCom case on the subject is in the voting stages. See Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat/Proposed_decision

What would you like to change about that?
Assistance to ensure an orderly debate in seeking and reaching consensus about these article and the best use of sources.

Mediator notes
Extended discussion has been archived to here. Since the discussion has been resolved, it seems, as to who the mediator will be, and as Vassyana has withdrawn, I'll be mediating after I've reviewed all info and evidence. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 18:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, there is more than one article under dispute here, I'll need details of the issues on each article, in a similar format to the "Issues to be mediated" section on the Divine Light mission talk page. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 23:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've formally accepted the case now. I still have to read over discussions, but I think I know the best way to mediate this dispute. It's a way I've never used before, but I think it will help. We will start with the things we all agree on, and work from there. I will ask questions, then we will either agree or disagree with them. While this may be thorough, I feel being thorough with this case is the best way to do it. Everyone ready? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 05:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Look forward to your assistance! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: Steve's request for information about the disputes in other articles. The list in Talk:Divine Light Mission includes the issues from other articles. Some of them, like the dispute over merging/splitting of articles, involve several articles. Others, like the disputes over sourcing, started in one article but are applicable to all of them. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

@Steve: I would suggest to start at Divine Light Mission, where the current efforts of editors is now focused. As Will says above, some issues there when resolved may have an impact on other articles as well. One step at a time, may be a good strategy, so why not to start there? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Issues to be Mediated
Okay, copied from the article talk page. I may need some clarification on these issues, any given would help.
 * Use of sources:
 * Cagan
 * Collier
 * Geaves
 * New York Times
 * Randi
 * Time
 * Watts
 * Wim Haan
 * Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji? (book)
 * What needs to be mediated here?


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

We will go through these issues one by one, discuss them, and strike them from the list of issues once they've been resolved. I think the best way to do this is to start on what is agreed on. I may ask some general questions, and I may need clarification on any COI's that exist between the disputants. That being said, I've read quite a lot of the discussions, so I'm quite aware of what's going on. Opening a new heading below for discussion, please keep this one clear. Apologies I haven't done this earlier, I've been quite busy. Regards, Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 23:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we have made some progress, but so far, I'm unclear if any on this list have actually been "resolved", so to speak. Thoughts by the parties? Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  01:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see any issues on that list that have been settled. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we may have made some small progress on Collier, but I don't see any progress on Randi, and it would seem everyone has had their say on the matter, where do we go with it from here Steve? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 03:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I was just wondering if in any of the proposals, any of these issues had been addressed. It's no big deal, and I don't think we should do too many things at once, once the current proposals are done, I think discussion can resume here. Steve Crossin   (talk)  (email)  04:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Discussion
Let us know when or how want a response. Here are brief clarifications of the issues, as I see them:
 * The listed source are those about which there's a dispute over whether they are generally reliable/suitable, reliable/suitable only in certain circumstances, or unreliable/unsuitable in all cases. That list is constantly growing.
 * The context issues are areas where one editor thinks additional material not directly related to the topic needs to be included in order to explain the context of sourced assertions in the article.
 * The membership issue is that one editor says we need to report all available estimates of the size of the group.
 * The merging/splitting is a very broad discussion of how to divide information on Prem Rawat, the organizations associated with him, and the teachings he and others have propagated.
 * The SPS issue and the "DLM in India" issue are closely related and concern the Indian branch of the DLM run by the estranged brother of Prem Rawat.
 * The exceptional claims issue concerns one or more sourced assertions in the articles that some editors claim are "exceptional claims" per WP:REDFLAG. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Steve. Your proposal to take issues one at a time is very sensible. Look forward to get started. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Steve, sorry I was interrupted when I added 'Who is Guru Maharaj Ji' to the list of sources last night. This has been discussed in the past on Rawat talk pages. The book states that its copyright is owned by Shri Hans Publications which at the time (1973) was a trading name for Divine Light Mission. My question is - can this book be used as a primary source for the official position of Divine Light Mission at the time? I ask because I and many others recall that Prem Rawat at the time was promoted by himself and his close disciples as the one and only Incarnation of God on the planet, but although there are good sources that state that many of his followers believed he was God, the Wiki articles do not present this belief as a central teaching of Divine Light Mission, and I believe they should. The back cover of the book asks 'Why do more than six million people around the world claim he is the greatest incarnation of God that ever trod the face of this planet?'. --John Brauns (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The beliefs on PR's divinity during the 1970's (the book was published in 73) is already covered in Prem_Rawat, Divine_Light_Mission, and Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat. See also Talk:Prem_Rawat/WIGMJ  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it should briefly be re-addressed? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 15:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation
Okay, let's begin. Just a note, I've invited WBOSITG to co-mediate this. He's a new administrator, and is relatively new to dispute resolution. Just a note to you all. Any objections, can be raised with me privately by email. Now, although I've read the dispute thoroughly, I'm not overly aware of the personal conflicts, as in, which issues are more contentious than others. So, if we could come to some sort of agreement as to which issue we should start with, then we will begin going through each issue one by one. Another note, in case I haven't aformentioned it. I cannot tolerate incivility or personal attacks in cases i mediate. Just a note. Okay, will wait for responses. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am glad you will be intolerant of personal attacks, and would like to point out that all related articles are under ArbCom probation, so anyone attempting to go into that direction will need to face WP:AE. I also welcome WBOSTIG to this effort. As for where to start, I would say just start from any of the points listed at Talk:Divine_Light_Mission. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Also keep in mind I have little to no experience in this field of Wikipedia; I'm sure you'll keep me right. I hope to be of as much help as possible.   weburiedoursecrets  inthegarden  16:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I reviewed the Arbitration Comittee decision, and I'm aware of the sanctions that they have imposed on these articles. I also spoke to an arbitrator on this matter. However, we shouldn't wave the threat of AE around, should we? ;). As for the pending issues to be mediated, yes, I'm aware of them, however, as I have aformentioned, I'd like to do this one at a time, and, well, we should try to start with the least contentious one as possible, no? Jossi, feel free to respond on my talk page as well. And that goes for all the parties. Awaiting your reply, Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The simplest issues may be the "context" ones. So far as I'm aware, only Jossi is concerned with those. On the other hand, we're right in the middle of discussing some sources, perticularly Cagan and Collier, so those are timely. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well sure, I'm happy to start with either one. Just add one of the topics for discussion, either a context one or a reference one. I'll also use the Reliable sources noticeboard, and other venues, in this MedCab, when and if I feel necessary. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Where should do we add it to? They're already on the list. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. I mean, pick one of the topics from that list, in a new heading, then we can discuss that. Sorry if that was unclear. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 17:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Collier

 * Talk:Teachings of Prem Rawat/Archive 1
 * Talk:Divine Light Mission
 * Talk:Divine Light Mission


 * Sophia Collier. Soul Rush – The Odyssey of a Young Woman of the '70s. New York: Morrow, 1978 ISBN 0688032761
 * Wikipedia article: Soul Rush (book)
 * Substantial excerpts:

Okay, I saw this on the first link, at the bottom, "That may help. I've removed the Collier quote pending agreement on all of these.". Can you please copy that quote here, for convenience? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 17:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the quotation from Teachings of Prem Rawat (note that there's also a disagreement on the DLM page).
 * Sophia Collier, a former member of the Divine Light Mission staff, writes in her autobiography, "The meditation techniques were very simple and effective. When I tried them out with the group, I felt wonderful calm and joy." 
 * The issue with using her as a source for this material is that she is not a notable commentator or scholar, and the same editors promoting this quote were excluding others from more noteworthy commentators. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, unless I am mistaken, you have said that there are other quotes that have been excluded? Is that correct? If so, would you mind adding them here, with the sources as well. Then we can examine them. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 18:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is text that I added and that Rumiton deleted :
 * According to the New York Times'', Alan Watts, a student of Eastern Religions, said, "The core of this doctrine is sacred ignorance."
 * In An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural'', skeptic James Randi writes that,
 * "“Receiving the knowledge” turned out to be a process of seeing “heavenly lights” when pressing on the eyeballs, hearing “blissful music” when the ears were stopped up, tasting “divine nectar” when the head was thrown back with the tongue turned inward, and receiving a mantra nonsense word. The sensory illusions were quite natural and easily understood physiological phenomena, the “nectar” being simply nasal secretions dripping into the throat. Only the very naive were convinced that they had been let in on some sort of celestial secret."
 * On the talk page I suggested just using Randi for the last remark, "Only the very naive were convinced that they had been let in on some sort of celestial secret," but there were objections to that as well. These two quotes were dicsussed at Talk:Teachings of Prem Rawat/Archive 1 and Talk:Teachings of Prem Rawat/Archive 1. As a result of this dispute we posted a request for input on the RSN, Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 11.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If there are more noteworthy scholars, surely they should be used in preference?  weburiedoursecrets inthegarden  19:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the editors should have a look at the Neutral point of view policy, specifically on WP:NPOV, and consider that when looking at these quotes here. Also, at WP:SOURCE, it says,

All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view.

Looking at this, what are your thoughts on the above quotes, and why/why not they should be included, considering these policies?. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 19:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, they're both biased. Can't we use one from each side of the argument, to balance?  weburiedoursecrets  inthegarden  19:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be fine with adding all three, plus other first-person accounts. My main issue with this instance is that Collier is allowed but not Watts and Randi. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Some clarifications:
 * Watts quote "sacred ignorance" is actually a positive remark, not a negative one (Watts actually help pay for the Rawat's ticket to the US). The issue here is that it is cited out of context, presented as it was a negative perception by citing not from Watts directly, but from a journalist that quotes Watts out of context for effect.


 * Randi's source: Look at the source and please tell me how encyclopedic is that information? It is from a source that is peppered with factual mistakes about dates and locations, written in a flippant style and making comments about things that person has no know-how or expertise to comment on. Fore NPOV, ee ought to use the best sources available to us, and not just any source.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Collier: We could use Collier only if her comments are not in dispute with scholarly sources on the subject. The rationale is that Collier's book is an memoir, and as such a primary source. If what Colier says augment schlarly sources on the subject, we could use it. If not, we should not.

Jossi, given your comments, what version or references/quotes do you wish to include? (sorry if this seems unclear). Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 21:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I would not cite Watts, unless we find the direct quote from Watts, and not the out-of-context remark of that journalist. I would not cite from Collier, unless the specific text from that source is not in contradiction with schloarly sources, and it only augments such sources. Randi's source I would not touch with a 10-foot pole. See for example his entry on Sir Conan Doyle Would we use the mention that Sir Conan Doyle was a "bit of a snob" in his biographical article as Randi claims? Certainly not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I would not cite Watts either, same reasons as given by Jossi above. Jayen 466 02:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that every uninvolved editor who commented on Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 11 basically agreed that Randi was reliable and noteworthy, and that his opinion should be included with attribution.
 * Alan Watts is one of the most prominent Western commentators on Eastern religions. His view was not presented as either a criticism or as praise, but simply as a significant viewpoint on the teachings.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said, I have no problems in citing Watts. I have a problem on citing someone that cites Watts out of context. As for Randi, there is no such a thing as a reliable source in absolute terms. As it would not be appropriate to use the flippant comments about Sir Connan Doyle, we should not use him here either. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also note that the closing comment in WP:RS/N was that: This just isn't a reliable sources issue, it's a consensus issue, which is why we are discussing this here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The only argument you've made here is that Randi is unreliable. When you made the same arguments at RSN every uninvolved editor disagreed with you. Is there some other objection you have besides reliablity?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My objection is not about reliability, but about appropriateness of using a source which is full of factual errors and is of poor quality in comparison with many other sources available. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if your objection isn't reliaiblity then don't make arguments about unreliability. I am not suggesting that we use Randi for factual information. We've got plenty of descriptions of the meditation techniques (which don't disagree with the description by Randi). I'm suggesting that we use Randi as an attributed viewpoint about the techniques. Something like Sceptic James Randi has written that only "the very naive" believe the meditation techniques are "some sort of cosmic secret". The mistake he made in the year of the Glastonbury Festival appearance does not negate his noteworthy opinion. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If is facts are incorrect (and not only the Glastonbury date), why would his opinion be noteworthy? There are ZERO sources from scholars that make such a comment. His opinion is not that noteworthy and that is why it is not used in articles such as Sir Conan Doyle. You are welcome to add his opinion of Doyle and others in James Randi where it belongs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly object to the use of Randi in this context. He is not an encyclopedic source; he is unfamiliar with the religious tradition from which the techniques he comments on originate; his article does not even pretend to be thoroughly researched. Yes, it may be fun to read, but it has no business forming the basis of an encyclopedia article. Not even close. Jayen 466</i> 02:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to refresh the memory, here are Randi's views on Christianity:
 * Again, okay and reliable for his own page, but not appropriate as an encyclopedic source for Jesus, the Bible or the Virgin birth of Jesus. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 02:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've noticed that editors compain about using editors associated with Christian denominations. This viewpoint is skeptical rather than Christian. No other source has the same viewpoint. Randi is far better known than Collier - if his viewpoint is not notable than why is Collier's viewpoint notable? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Collier, as I have abundantly argued, can be used only to augment scholarly opinions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How is she augmenting scholarly opinions? We don't have any scholarly opinions that say the scholars get a feelig of calm and joy. Can you point to which scholar she's augmenting? We do have scholars that say the movement was met with skepticism. We can add those and use Randi to augment them.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't have any scholarly opinions that say the scholars get a feeling of calm and joy.  Oh yes, we do. Galanter, Hunt, Downton, to name a few. They may not speak about themselves but they speak about the effects on practitioners. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As a general observation from an editor who had no contact with Prem Rawat or any of his followers or (bitter) ex-followers, until I started editing these articles in February -- there is a real problem with double standards for sources. The 3 consistently pro-Rawat editors (Jossi, Momento, and Rumiton) have consistently opposed sources that don't support Rawat unless they are scholars of the highest qualification.  But those supporting Rawat face a very low standard of qualification.  Speaking for myself, I would love to see any consistent standard for qualification, high or low, but the double standard is very grating.  Collier is a perfect example.  She has no scholarly qualifications whatsoever, and has described in great detail her heavy use of LSD and other drugs. Yet the 3 editors consider her fine.  Even worse, they accept her when she supports their argument that Rawat did not claim divinity, but reject her when she reports claims that Rawat was "sloshed."  James Randi, a person skeptical of all religion, who is colorful and opinionated but generally well researched and accurate, they will not accept.  They will focus on minor factual discrepancies on people like Randi, but the results of their arguments are very consistently pro-Rawat.  In this particular case, Randi is not a great source in my opinion but he's far better than Collier.Msalt (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the best compromise is to not cite Collier, unless she is quoted by a scholar. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 13:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right, MSalt. But then I do observe a similar bias from the other side of the debate as well -- it is always about including material that is to the detriment of Rawat, portraying him somehow as a deficient human being, often based on sources that are distinctly questionable. Perhaps both sides should just agree to stick with scholarly sources, and then be prepared to take the rough with the smooth -- DuPertuis on the one hand, and van der Lans on the other. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 13:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I object to the sweeping nature of Jayen's insinuation here. It is not 'always' about 'including material that is to the detriment of Rawat'. For example when I edited the Collier quote (a long time ago) it was simply to include more of it which had been formerly left out creating a distinctly wrong impression. The whole use of that quote was 'weasely' in fact. It was used to bolster the assertion that Rawat never claimed to be Divine. Furthermore I would like to see evidence of any material that has actually been inserted in the manner Jayen says, within the last few years. The editing has been almost entirely done by followers. I also object to the assumption that ex-followers are, by default 'Anti-Rawat'. I am not anti-Rawat I am anti-inaccuracies and whitewash.  PatW (talk) 08:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * @msalt: Yet the 3 editors consider her fine. Not really. @Jaen: Yes, I would agree with your proposal. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi


 * Whoever wrote the above, let's all express our own views, not derogate others by speaking for them. And please sign your name. Yes Jayen, that seems pretty good to me. I sometimes feel like a broken record, getting ignored when I point out that notability is essential for a subject, not what we look for in a source, which must be reputable. A murderer might be highly notable but will be highly disreputable. And anything from a reputable source that appears in a Wikipedia article must be intelligently chosen. When an otherwise credible source proves that he knows nothing about a particular topic, as Randi does when he waxes witty on khecari mudra, quoting his opinion does no one a favour, unless it is presented as an example of an ignorant response to the subject. This approach seems rather snide and peevish to me, and unfair to the source in question, who was probably writing in good faith. And it seems peculiarly dogmatic to say, "No, this is a reputable source and what he said has to go in." Regarding Collier, I agree that she is not an impressive recounter of events, but quoting her as saying she (or however many others) felt a joy and peace from practising the techniques seems unexceptional to me. A lot of sources say something similar, though clearly they are all open to the allegation of positive bias. Regarding Watts, knowing something of his writings I think he was clearly writing poetically and using oxymoron in his reference to "sacred ignorance", and to insist on including his words without that context, and for their shock value, is disingenuous. Claiming we must not "interpret" his words and must present them as is, also seems dishonest and agendered. Rumiton (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have argued against Collier since day 1, in her book she says she was in the ashram for 1 month at 16, during that time she was highly experimental with LSD, and she wrote about her experience in this book 6 years later. The book is not about Rawat, or the DLM, it is a non-scholarly autobiography. In fact, in a later interview with CNN, it was such an important part of her life, that she completely forgets to/chooses not to mention it. How is that, in any way, a reliable, or even semi-reliable source, except, possibly to back up claims made by others that are qualified? Answer, it's not. Her comments on the Divine/Not Divine nature of Rawat are ridiculous as well. In no way is she qualified to make the distinction she does about how others who "knew him better" felt about Rawat. Relatedly, why are we talking about 3 sources here, when we were specifically asked to take these 1 at a time? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 15:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Section Break
Okay, just a section break. I'm still watching the discussion (at 2am), but, can I ask that  ::: 's not be used excessvely? Would be great, bullets, well, they're fine. Please continue. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 15:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We could contnue making old arguments until it's time to archive this page. Do mediators have any suggestions on how to resolve this dispute? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Due some personal issues, I may not be as responsive as usual. It may take a few days before I can re-engage in the debate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Jayen: I agree that a lot of the ex-devotees cherry pick in the opposite direction, and I've identified this warring as the issue from the beginning.  (Most of them, though, have recused themselves from editing.)  I don't think that applies to Will Beback, Maelefique, you, or me, though.  I guess I'm frustrated because I have been trying again and again to establish some kind of objective standard we can agree to, and then apply.  If people agree on the standard, then the particulars should be much easier.  Jossi however steadfastly opposes any standard.  Yes, context is important, but when it's used to justify a quote by Collier -- acknowledged as a non-expert -- saying that Rawat's techniques made her happy, well it's hard for me to see that as a good faith judgment of context instead of pro-Rawat cheerleading.  I also have trouble with accepting any and all scholars, given that we have at least 3 sources who are acknowledged devotees of Rawat (but don't always acknowledge that in their articles.)  I haven't read Van der Lans, but if he's grinding an anti-Rawat axe, I don't think it's a wise compromise to include both. Msalt (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Msalt and Jayen: It was not my choice that Wikipedia identify me as a former follower of Rawat, but once here I decided to contribute. To my knowledge only four former followers have edited the Rawat articles in the last three years, and I've not seen any evidence of cherry picking by any of 'us'. The notion of there being an equality of 'guilt' regarding POV pushing on the Rawat articles is becoming ingrained, but it is not an acurate representation of the history, perhaps in future acusations could be about named individuals who can then defend themselves if they wish, rather than blame being cast onto a group ? --Nik Wright2 (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I entirely concur with Nik on this. I think it is inaccurate to accuse former followers of 'cherry-picking'to the degree demonstrated by others. The role of former followers has not lately been as editors but mostly as contributors to Talk Pages. There they/we have mostly been preoccupied in arguing why we perceive the article as heavily pro-Rawat biased. It is a testament to the commitment of Jossi, Momento and Ruminton that we seem to have made no progress and instead have apparently simply stirred more resentment against so-called 'ex-premies'. PatW (talk) 08:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't you think the premie scholars and the Christian scholars could balance each other out? It might be one way to arrive at NPOV. All significant viewpoints; I think scholars' viewpoints are more significant than those of people merely dabbling in the field. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 22:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * On Alan Watts: I'm a huge fan.  His "sacred ignorance" comment clearly cuts both ways and reverberates in deep ways that can't necessarily be pinned down.  That's why I like him.  Whether that makes him appropriate for Wikipedia, I don't know.  Collier strikes me as the kind of colorful, first person narrative that is great material for another writer to use, but also an example of why Wikipedia avoids first person narratives, unless they are by professional journalists.  For factual details, OK in a pinch if no other source; for any kind of evaluation, no.  I don't see the point of augmenting really; either we already have it, or don't. Msalt (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Feelings of bliss: I'm sorry but this seems like clearly POV cheerleading, whether documented by scholars or not.  Every spiritual teacher makes their followers happy, duh.  Interesting or unusual details, like specifics of Knowledge techniques, or Sri Chinmoy's followers setting world records, great.  But, he makes his fans happy? Should I add that to The Shins page too, because listening to them brings me euphoria and bliss? Msalt (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Another issue with the Collier quote, (which Momento deleted yesterday citing "undue weight") is that it's one isolated quotation out of an extended discussion of the meditiation technique. Within a page or two we could find less positive assessments. This can be called "cherrypicking". It doesn't summarize her views - it's just a POV quotation.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Steve, (and WBOSITG) I think you've read the large majority of the arguments that pertain to Sophia Collier can we get some kind of statement/opinion/ruling/suggestion/whatever yet? I think despite jossi's temporary absence, his position is clear, and Wikipedia can struggle along without him for a day or two. I think Randi deserves much more discussion still (in a separate section). -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 19:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Let me review the recent comments, and I'll make a suggestion. I'd like to note I'm probably the least "experienced" person here, been here just over 3 months. It makes no difference really. I feel I'm still competent to mediate this. All parties that are around, please actively watch this page. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 19:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, thinking it over, it seems to be clear there is a dispute over the reliability of this source, and whether the source may have been taken out of context. It isn't the role of a mediator to determine the reliability of a source, and as I'm not an expert in the field, and a mediator who really shouldn't say, Yes, use it or No, don't, I feel compelled to use the Reliable sources noticeboard here. After that, we can take the result there and further discuss it. Thoughts? And, sorry if you were expecting a huge, detailed reply. It's not my role to "rule" in favour of one viewpoint, merely to mediate the discussion, and point to policies/make suggestions where I can. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 20:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's fine with me. As a neutral party, could you draft the request for RSN? One of us could do it but the framing of such questions can influence the answers.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * More about Collier - the most current dispute over Collier concerns using her as a source for derogatory comments by or about living 3rd-parties. In one instance she depicts a person as lying, and in another she mentions a drinking problem and quotes someone as saying that person was drunk. We haven't gotten into that dispute here, but it's relevant to a general RSN request. Several editors have informally agreed that we could stop using the book as a source for the comments of 3rd-parties. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note also, Randi has already been taken to RSN, didn't seem to make much difference (RSN said he was reliable). -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 21:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the proposal of RS/N. The closing comment made in RS/N about Randi by an uninvolved editor was: "This just isn't a reliable sources issue, it's a consensus issue". So, the dispute is not about reliability of the sources. It is about reaching consensus on how best use (or not use) the sources we have, which context we provide about these, and how these sources, if agreed to be used will eventually end up as text in the article. I would expect a mediator to offer proposal that will bring about a compromise between the disputants, which would be accepted as consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have never suggested that the comments by the reliable sources noticeboard I would be bound by. Merely in this case, as I noted previously, that I'd consider using several tools in my "mediator bag", and at my discretion, I'll use the reliable sources noticeboard at my discretion, but in no way be bound by their decision. Feel free to raise objections on my talk page. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 21:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) jossi, you've already said that above on this page, (pretty much verbatim), repeating yourself doesn't help, it only lengthens the process as everyone has to-re-read it. Can we try to keep the process moving along instead of bogging yet another attempt down please? (and as an aside, wow, and you talk about cherrypicking...| here's the link, where there is very very little to support what jossi just said, and a lot to support that Randi is a reliable source for this) And for the third time, Randi needs more discussion, we should be discussing these one at a time, and we're currently discussing Collier. Steve, maybe you could refactor this page, and move Randi (and/or Watts) to their own sections? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 21:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I could do that. To clarify to Jossi, I'm discussing taking the Collier source to Reliable sources noticeboard, and not the other sources. [[Image:Pictogram voting wait.svg|20px]] Refactoring- In-use. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 21:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've posted a proposal for the RSN query at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Divine Light Mission. Any suggestions? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See Reliable sources/Noticeboard. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been following the discussion and concur with reference of Collier to the RSN. I do have concern about Jossi's position as expressed: I would not cite from Collier, unless the specific text from that source is not in contradiction with schloarly sources, and it only augments such sources. in that, that reads to me like a proposition to use a non academic text to support an academic one. If the academic source is not in need of support then surely  any non academic source would be redundant as the academic source would cover the ground adequately. And if the academic source needs 'support' from a non academic source then surely it falls as being unreliable ? --Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Compromise proposal
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to use Collier for claims about third parties, or if it contradicts scholarly sources
 * Not to use Randi, per arguments made
 * Look for the original quote by Watts, and quote him directly.


 * By amazing coincidence, Jossi's proposal would allow Collier to still be used as a reference for the pro-Rawat points (saying Rawat wasn't *really* seen as divine, saying Rawat made her happy) but not her anti-Rawat points (augmenting Mishler's statement that Rawat was drunk) and also excluding Randi, who we are not discussing here but is only critical of Rawat. Frankly, I don't see good faith or an objective standard as the basis for this compromise and can not sign off on it. Msalt (talk) 03:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really, Msalt. Making a claim about Rawat, would be making a claim about a third party. That Rawat "made her happy" is not really encyclopedic content, and should not be used either. Please WP:AGF, it is not that hard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't describe that as a compromise. "Claims about 3rd-parties" and"contradicts scholarly sources" are both vague. Jossi's suggestion that the "Made her happy" is not encyclopedic hasn't been made by him before, to the best of my knowledge, and "unencyclopedic" is too vague a distinction in a contentious topic like this. There's no clear reason to allow Collier but not allow Randi or Watts. The mediator has suggested next going to RSN regarding Collier and I suggest we follow that plan. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Broken record. We're not talking about Randi here. I haven't even started discussing him yet. With some of the things being said around here, I don't find it hard to believe at all that some editors have difficulty with WP:AGF. I do not see how this is a compromise. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 05:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that Collier is a chatty and informative source whose phrasing could brighten up the article when her points are echoed by more scholarly sources. At the time of her writing this book she clearly had no academic record to consider, so her occasional descents into gossip should be ignored. Rumiton (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not following your logic here. If she had not academic record to consider, why should her "occasional descents" be ignored? I wouldn't call her comments gossip, why is she chatty and informative, except when she says something negative? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 15:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not understand why my comments are being labeled as vague. I am saying we do not use Collier for anything about third parties, and that personal impressions in a memoir are not encyclopedic. I would encourage editors to re-assess my proposal. It will save us time, I am sure of that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (e/c)I agree on Randi and Watts (I looked for the quote at the time, no success). With Collier we'd have to define what a third party is. Does it include (a) Rawat ("slurred") (b) Davis ("22,000") (c) other premies ("those who knew him a bit better")? If we exclude all three, nothing much would be left, IMO? Are we saying that comments about unnamed people are fine, but not comments about people who are named? Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 15:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is from the Reliable Sources noticeboard. We will just copy it into the case page here, and discuss it. Alright?

I have my doubts about the reliability a memoir written by a 20 year old about experiences she had as teenager. In any case, as a first-hand account it would essentially be a primary source. It may be possible to use parts, but only with careful attribution to the source, not using the editorial voice. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As a baseline, the point about being a primary source makes sense. Collier does report on a variety of matters, matters for which there is no other source, with apparent objectivity. My concern is that if we don't agree on crystal-clear boundaries of how or when she can be used then it will continue to be a point of contention. We don't want to end up in a situation where she is allowed for positive assertions but not negative ones (or vice versa). As a route forward, perhaps editors could list here what assertions they'd like to source to Collier and we can see if there's an obvious boundary line that can be drawn. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat
 * Other reporters found a "confused jumble of inarticulately expressed ideas." *
 * (Despite his denial in a July, 1972 interview of any belief that he was the Messiah, pre-existing millennial expectations were fostered partly by his mother,) whose talks were full of references to her son's divine nature, and partly by Rawat himself who generally encouraged whatever view was held by people. *

Divine Light Mission
 * The 500-member tour was dubbed "Soul Rush" and traveled to seven cities on the way to Houston.
 * Other reporters found a "confused jumble of inarticulately expressed ideas." *
 * ... or even as many as 400,000 people from Satpal. Davis privately said he thought 22,000 was a more realistic estimate and reserved 22,000 hotel beds. *
 * While Rawat's brother Satpal was nominally in charge of the festival, Davis was the "General Coordinator" and handled the details.
 * Event-related expenses were covered by short-term credit based on the expectation that contributions would pour in following the free festival. *

These are the current uses of the source. I put an asterisk after those for which Collier may be the only available source. There are countless objective observations in her book that we could also use if we get this matter resolved. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not evtremely important, but reference 5 seems to be broken. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 04:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Material that could also be used for various articles:
 * Drinking, by Prem Rawat and his brother, et al.
 * In general the festival was a bore. I enjoyed seeing all of the friends I had met in other parts of the DLM community, but from a theatrical point of view, I was disappointed. Maharaj Ji's remarks were undistinguished, and I noticed his words were slurred. There were a few light notes, though, in the three days. As a joke on BB, someone tacked up a sign that said "Mars" around an empty section of seats, parroting the signs premies of France, Sweden, India, Spain, etc., had put up to announce their country of origin. The high point of the event for me was some beers I had with Lola and the Village Voice reporter, Marilyn Webb. As I sat and sipped, the two of them ranted about what a disappointment the Millennium event had turned out to be. (As I discovered later, we were not the only ones for whom some alcohol was the festival's high point. Bob Mishler told me Maharaj Ji got "sloshed.")
 * I could see that Raja was not taking it well. With the lines so clearly drawn he began expanding his existing fascination for guns and violence. Like Maharaj Ji, Raja Ji had started to drink. Though I love to drink from time to time, I never do so before the end of the afternoon. Raja Ji sometimes started much earlier than that. One evening I sat with him and Claudia as they drank. Slowly the conversation turned from an interesting discussion to a series of slurred comments about where do the bubbles come from in champagne. This is spirituality? I thought to myself. This sort of incident and the seemingly endless difficulties Guru Maharaj Ji had with his family were wearing me out.


 * Beliefs/practices of the DLM
 * Pages 113-116, quoting an unnames mahatma, including this passage:
 * After the mahatma had taught us all four techniques, he said that the reason for our positive experiences was the connection of grace established between us, the discuples, and Maharaj Ji, the Guru, in this mystical initiation. We should not teach the meditation to anyone else, he cautioned. The people we taught would be spritual bastards, initiates without gurus. And furthermore, he added, if we taught the meditation to anyone else, we would suffer too, if not in this life, in the hereafter. Undoubtedly we would be reincarnated as snakes, he said. (p.116)
 * p. 146-146 Five manifestations of the Satguru (holy family)
 * The meditation techniques were very simple and effective. When I tried them out with the group, I felt wonderful calm and joy.

I'll skim through the book again and see if what other assertions may be useful for our articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)  -Amended  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Marriage
 * I did not share their enthusiasm for rooms whose primary decoration was a huge altar with pictures of the "holy family", Guru Maharaj Ji and his kin... Most of the mahatmas were of the opinion that not only was Mharaj Ji divine himself, but so were the four other members of his family. (p.144)


 * Divinity (or lack thereof)
 * "Guru Maharaj Ji, though he has never made a definitive statement on his own opinion of his own divinity, generally encourages whatever view is held by the people he is with. Addressing several hundred thousand ecstatic Indian devotees, prepared for his message by a four-thousand-year cultural tradition, he declares, (in the Peace Bomb satsang I believe pw) 'I am the source of peace in this world . . . surrender the reins of your life unto me and I will give you salvation.' On national television in the United States he says sheepishly, with his hands folded in his lap, 'I am just a humble servant of God. preface
 * There are those who sincerely believe that Guru Maharaj Ji is the Lord of Creation here in the flesh to save the world. And then there are those who know him a little better than that. They relate to him in a more human way... to them he is more of a teacher, a guide, a co-conspirator in their personal pursuit of a more heavenly way of life.


 * Press & popular perception
 *  And, as I noticed on Soul Rush, anytime the premies started to sound dumb or crazy, on went the TV lights, to the pad went the pencils. No journalist could either resist or make sense of this odd story of foolish utopians whose leader appeared to be nothing more than a fat Indian kid in a Rolls. "And didn't he have an ulcer?" was one reporter's last question to me at the end of the third evening. One news story caused me great personal embarrassment. It was written by the woman from the Village Voice who had seemed so sweet on Soul Rush. The things I had told her, hoping to explain how fanaticism and genuine spirituality coexisted in our movement, were misquoted. Other remarks, which I had made jokingly and in high spirits, she presented as my serious beliefs. 
 * p. 124 "sensation in youth culture"


 * Soul Rush
 * Ch. 13


 * Millenium '73
 * p. 133 call from HQ
 * p. 157 BB predictions
 * Chap. 12
 * p.174-175
 * Ch. 14 post mortem


 * Rawat's habits/demeanor
 * p. 149-150
 * p. 163


 * Family politics/rift
 * p. 160


 * pie throwing
 * p. 163

Collier Discussion

 * What is all this? The single response in RS/N did not make a determination that material from a memoir can be used to make assertions or opinions in this manner. I strongly object to these per WP:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you object to? What I've done is list the current citations in the topic, and other possible uses of the source. Once we've got a better perspective on the source it'll be easier to determine how reliable the source is. If Collier is a reliable source then there's no BLP violation. If she's not a reliable source then we shouldn't use her at all. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You strongly object to Will listing quotes from the book that may or may not be usable? Why? Do you agree now that Collier is wholly unusable? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 07:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Does anyone believe that hearsay in a memoir can be used in a BLP? The only way Collier can be used is to augment, expand on material available from scholarly sources on the subject, and that only if not in contradiction with these sources. I have argued this point many times already. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So which of these assertions would you allow and which would you deny? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that it is pretty obvious, isn't it. Do you want me to address each point separately? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, if you could create a separate list of what you'd consider acceptable and unacceptable according to the criteria you're suggesting that'd help. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Secondary source on Collier
I just encountered this secondary source on Collier: Maybe this helps: for those instances where Collier can't be used because too primary as a source, maybe this secondary source can be used instead, while hopefully giving somewhat more context and interpretation (that is: a reliable source's interpretation, as opposed to interpretation by Wikipedians - see WP:NOR). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Barbour, John D. Versions of Deconversion: Autobiography and the Loss of Faith. University of Virginia Press, 1994, ISBN 0813915465 Preview at Google Book Search (starts at the bottom of p170, not all pages are displayed)

The need for context
This brings to the discussion the need for proper use of sources and the need for context. My assessment is that Will is happy to leave the context out and just cite short summaries of the sources. My argument (in this and many other articles in Wikipedia) is that context is everything. One example is the discussion about the DLM being banned in 1973 in Argentina, without adding the necessary context for our readers: (a) the ban was imposed by the Argentina_third_military_dictatorship;  (b) that the ban was criticized in the Buenos Aires Herald who called the Argentina ban as "unfortunate and disturbing" and noted that the decree did not show the DLM had acted contrary to Argentine law, morals, or national security; (c) that the ban was challenged in court as anti-constitutional, and (d) that the (at the time) reactionary forces in the Catholic church were behind the bans of NRMs in Argentina during the dictatorship.

My view is that without context these statements do not serve NPOV, the argument that it is factually correct to say "DLM was banned in 1973 in Argentina", is not enough: Without the necessary context that statement may be factually accurate, but it is not only not NPOV, but is also misleading to our readers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Accusing other editors of engaging in "subterfuges to push a certain POV" is not a helpful way of achieving consensus in mediation. Since I'm the contributor who added that material I'd like to ask you either explain exactly what POV I'm pushing, or retract the acusation. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Redacted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The mediators have asked that we deal with one issue at a time. The first issue has already grown to include three issues, and we ahven't even gotten to the most current disagreement. I suggest we leave the "context" issue until we've resolved the three we've already started mediating. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, I'm watching the discussion here. Feel free to continue the discussion, but yes. I'd prefer we go through this one at a time. Cheers, <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 01:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Context is an issue in many of the disputes to be mediated. If I see the need to refer to this when discussing some sources, I will point to this discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Randi
There. How easy was that? Ok, now, fire away ppl! RS/N seems to think he's reliable. If you read the WP entry on him, they certainly seem to think he's a serious and legitimate figure, what's the problem? He got some dates wrong? If I find an entry where Prem Rawat got something wrong, can we just go ahead and strike anything he's said as unreliable as a source? (of course not!) There is nothing in his article to indicate he has any particular axe to grind, beyone being a professional skeptic, and, I'm guessing, an athiest, or that his opinions have been overly controversial (which is not to say there hasn't been some controversy, which I would think is unavoidable given his chosen profession) -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 04:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * All this has been said before, ad nauseum. Randi has showed that he knows nothing about Indian spiritual (raj) yoga techniques. Read the Wikipedia page on khecari mudra and compare it to his description. He obviously never heard of it before. That makes him ignorant of this subject, and not a reliable source, no matter how "serious and legitimate" he may be in other areas. This argument, it seems to me, cannot be refuted, only ignored, which will probably happen again right now. Rumiton (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's all new to Steve, and the arguments presented here are for his benefit, so I don't see any reason to think they would be ignored. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 15:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I take your point. No disrespect intended for Steve, but keeping up with the subtleties of this process every day while running a demanding business is getting a little difficult. Right now, for example, it is 1:24 a.m. where I live. But I will try harder. Rumiton (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Also, what Jossi is calling "the need for context" could also be described as "the need for intelligent editing." I am not sure if we are pioneering new Wikipedia principles here. If we are, good! Rumiton (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, as I mentioned above, Randi has also commented on Christianity, saying that the Wizard of Oz is more believable, and more fun, than the Bible. Of course, there is not a trace of that comment in our article on the Bible. As I said before in the RS/N discussion, try getting his comments included in that article, and in the article on the virgin birth of Jesus, based on his notability and reliability. I cannot escape the impression that a double standard is being proposed here: if it is Prem Rawat, anything goes, no matter how flippant, and if it is a respected, mainline religion, we are all polite. This is not how an encyclopedia should work. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 15:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, arguments and comments are not being ignored, at least not by me. I'm watching this case very closely, even though I haven't edited or commented much. I'm making notes as I read the case. It's 1.24am here, I'll be watching for a few more hours. Please continue. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 15:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe we've already agreed, at least most of us, that James Randi is a reliable source in his field of expertise. However there is no factual material in his book that we can't get from another source. The real question is whether he is noteworthy enough to include his opinion as a significant viewpoint. I think that as a famous skeptic we should include his view of the movement. Regarding Jayen's point, we reference Randi in our article about Sathya Sai Baba, who is a closer match in several respects to Prem Rawat than Jesus Christ is. He's also referenced in Oral Roberts, Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes, Aetherius Society, Jack Sarfatti, A. A. Allen, HeadOn, plus dozens of other articles about individuals, groups, and concepts. There's no double standard - Randi is used in articles that concern mainline religions too. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of us have make the opposite point, by pointing out that Randi's skeptic opinions are not being used in articles such as Judaism, Christianity, or Sir Conan Doyle, and that Randi's views can be presented in his article. See James_Randi, that I edited a few days ago based on our discussions on the matter. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also note that Randi's viewpoints have nothing to do with a "field of expertise". Skepticism, or Religious skepticism are not an area of expertise. His expertise, if he has any, is of stage magic. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Randi wrote a well-received book on faith healers. Weren't there claims that practicing the Techniques of Knowledge could cure various mental illnesses? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Not from Prem Rawat, and indeed his father would not teach the Knowledge to "anyone of unsound mind." The Keys application asks the applicant to confirm that they know that receiving or practising Knowledge will not cure any physical or mental disability. Rumiton (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * For more than two decades, Randi has been the country's skeptic- in-chief, aiming his arrow of rationalism at psychics and faith healers, mediums and mentalists. He finds his targets so preposterous and those falling for them so desperate that he has become obsessed... Michael Shermer, the publisher of Skeptic magazine and executive director of the Skeptics Society, notes Randi has taken on the role another famous magician, Houdini, once held. "It takes a magician to know how people deceive purposely. Scientists are not trained to detect intentional deception," Shermer said. "If you care about reality, Randi is a lens through which to see how these claims are put to the test." Randi's parents raised him Anglican, but he said from childhood, he never found the existence of God believable. He doesn't draw much of a distinction between mainstream religious groups and other spiritual figures on the fringe. The only difference, he said, is more established faiths have much more power.
 * "Skeptic wants proof, not faith Former magician doubts anything is supernatural", Matt Sedensky Associated Press. Journal - Gazette. Ft. Wayne, Ind.: Sep 1, 2007. pg. 1.C
 * This source shows that Randi is considered a major skeptic, so it can be considered one of his fields of expertise. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Randi hasn't performed as a magician since 1974, he's been a professional skeptic with a background in manipulation (as a magician) since then. Sounds like an area of expertise to me. He's created or been involved with several foundations that have a "skeptical" base of operations. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 21:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayen makes a comparison in saying “if it is Prem Rawat, anything goes, no matter how flippant, and if it is a respected, mainline religion, we are all polite”. Clearly the point is an important one, but is there in fact an analogous situation between “mainline religion” and Rawat ? Currently the core WP article is a BLP and it is very difficult to see how a BLP could ever be an analogue of an article on a religion which is supported by millions and which has a history of a thousand years or more. Further, Rawat himself claims that what he teaches is not about religion; not withstanding that many of the most appropriate sources treat the Rawat movement as if it were an NRM, surely within the BLP, Rawat should be taken at his own word and not be considered as being personally equivalent to ‘a religion’ ? WP:BLP places many restrictions on how the subject can be treated, adding an equivalence to a world religion seems both excessive, and wrong.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If the difference is between a person and a religion, let's imagine inserting Randi's comments about the believability of Biblical accounts of Jesus in the article on Jesus. This is not just about who the article is about, it is also about the tone that an encyclopedia should strive for in its articles.  Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 17:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We have at least dozens articles about Jesus, some of which include viewpoints that devout Christians would probably consider highly offensive. See Jesus in Scientology. With all due respect to the Scientologists, I think that Randi is as reputable a commentator as L. Ron Hubbard. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that Scientology's views on Jesus are not in the Jesus article, but in an article of their own. That was precisely the point that Jossi was making earlier – Randi's views are fine and notable in Randi's article (and they are there). Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 17:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They are also in Religious perspectives on Jesus, as are views from a variety of perspectives. NPOV requires that we include all significant viewpoints. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a question of proportionality. The Religious perspectives on Jesus article is viewed about 50 times a day; the one on Jesus, well over a thousand times. As the coverage of a figure expands, more and more fringe views can be reported. Even so, we don't seem to have Randi's views on the historicity of Jesus, except in his own article. It is unimaginable to me that his views, and the way he expresses them, would be tolerated in the Jesus article proper, as those of a significant commentator. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 18:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Prem Rawat" is viewed about 150 times a day, while "Teachings of Prem Rawat" is viewed about 13 times a day. There's no proof, and no previous assertion, that Randi's view is a fringe view. Another aspect of proportionality is that there have been thousands of commetnators on the life and teahcings of Jesus. How many have there been on Rawat? In the scheme of things Randi is a very minor commentator on Jesus, but a relatively more important commentator on Rawat simply because so few noteworthy people have bothered to comment. Overall, I don't think that comparison of Jesus and Rawat are helpful. The circumstances are too different. Rawat has a number of contemporaries who are much more similar in most respects. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As an example of a closer comparison, see Osho, which quotes novelists Tom Robbins and Coleman Barks, and poet Coleman Barks. Why are we quoting them when they have no expertise in the field? Perhaps becuase they are noteworthy individuals and because there are relatively few noteworthy views of the subject. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In the case of Tom Robbins, Khushwant Singh, Clive James, Bernard Levin and Dominik Wujastyk, they are quoted because their views have been quoted in academic literature on the subject as representative of various POVs. Peter Sloterdijk is quoted because he is a leading European philosopher, and Coleman Barks is quoted because he is a noted writer of spiritual literature. Giani Zail Singh is quoted because he was quoted in an Indian government tax judgment discussing the subject's reception. But I understand and, well, half-take your point. :-) Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 20:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that when Bob Mishler registered the Divine Light Mission as a religion he set the stage, and now we have to treat Prem Rawat as a religious leader. Rumiton (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that we define Prem Rawat as a religious leader simply because of a legal technicality. We may be (and should be) polite towardes established religions, but we also have an enormous number of articles about criticism of those religions. Nor do we necessarily respect their wishes - we describe the secret theology of the Scientologists, reveal the Temple undergarments of the Mormons, and show pictures of Mohammed. Wikipedia is not censored. Getting back to the topic at hand, the proposal is to add this text: Sceptic James Randi has written that only "the very naive" believe the meditation techniques are "some sort of cosmic secret" to the "Teachings of Prem Rawat". I think that that article is misnamed since most of the teachings (the Techniques of Knowledge) are claimed to predate Rawat. Discussing the meditation techniques has nothing to do with BLP. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Get rid of the name Prem Rawat from the article and I will agree with you. Otherwise, this is absolutely part of a BLP. Rumiton (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's easy - we can move it back to its old name, Techniques of Knowledge. Even without the name change, that's what Randi is referring to.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not if it remains linked from the Prem Rawat article. It is still part of a BLP. Rumiton (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There are a hundred articles linked from the Prem Rawat article, including December 10, Haridwar, Glastonbury, hippie culture, and emancipated minor. It's absurd to suggest that those are BLPs simply because they are linked from a BLP. A meditation technique is not a person. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Responses:
 * Rawat is a living person who (together with his followers) claims not to be concerned with religion, Jesus is of uncertain historicity, who even if he did once exist is now long dead, and whose followers insist was/is of religious significance. No useful comparison can be drawn between the two.
 * Mishler’s creation in 1971 of an organisation named Divine Light Mission and registered as a church, with Prem Rawat (Guru Maharaj Ji) listed as its Chief Minister,  can not be the defining point of an article Divine Light Mission that is concerned with events that go back to at least 1930 and certainly must ‘commence’ in 1960 with the creation of the Indian organisation.  If Rawat is to be treated as a ‘religious leader’ in WP articles, the disavowal of religion by Rawat needs very explicit demonstration if the reader is not to be left hopelessly confused.
 * Teachings of Prem Rawat, may indeed be a poor name for a WP article, however some clear definition needs to be made. The Knowledge meditation does not of itself comprise ‘a teaching’ in the commonly understood term; Hans Rawat certainly ‘taught’ a comprehensive value/belief system | Hans Yog Prakash in tandem with the meditation, however there seems to be no such value/belief system espoused by his son. The current article could certainly be merged with the Hans Rawat and Prem Rawat articles without any loss of information.
 * Merging, as is proposed on the Teachings of Prem Rawat page does raise the issue of BLP relevance to the Randi quote, although I can see no reason why it would fall because of BLP but making it qualify on ‘respect for religion’ grounds as well as BLP seems absurd.
 * Faith healing – associated issues. The poor use of paraphrasing of Galanter in an earlier version of Divine Light Mission was very suggestive of ‘healing’, I can’t find the diffs but here’s the text as noted elsewhere –
 * ''In a study by Marc Galanter published in 1989 about the healing effects of spiritual affiliation, he found that social and spiritual recovery occurred naturally in certain groups. In the study, Galanter presents as an example the fact that members of the DLM experienced a reduction of symptoms of psychological distress after they joined the group.
 * In another study by Galanter, in cooperation with P Buckley, R and J Rabkin, on group influence for decreased drug use, it is presented that members of the DLM, many of whom had been involved in the counterculture of the early 1970s, reported incidence of drug use prior to joining which was much above that of a non-member comparison group. Reported levels were considerably lower after joining, and the decline was maintained over an average membership of 2 years.''


 * The point to note is that the benefits Galanter recorded were ascribed by him to psychosocial factors, not the meditation. see |Group Co-hesiveness


 * Claims for health giving properties of the Rawat meditation are otherwise unsourced and The Keys website states the following –


 * 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.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Pace and focus
I am raising a concern here. We have many items in mediation that needs our attention, but instead of bridging these disputes here, a new set of disputes is being introduced in Prem Rawat. There are even assertions made that the DLM article has improved to a point that enable us to make moves of large chunks of content between articles, which in light of the many disputes still present, I would say that it is either wishful thinking, or an attempt to frame these disputes as resolved while they are not. Hereby I object to the way this is progressing, and request from the mediators to assist us with the pace and in keeping the focus in resolving existing issues before raising new ones. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Request from the mediator(s)
Please see this statement from User:Will Beback. I request that this user be advised to slow down with his edits and engage instead in resolving the disputes at hand, rather than introduce new disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been as active as anyone in trying to resolve these disputes. Jossi is responding to some material I first asked about adding and solicitied input, then added based on his responses. See Talk:Prem Rawat I've addressed every comment he's made about the edits, and modified the material in response. I don't know what "slow" editing is, but if it means asking for input first and responding to concerns after, then that's what I'm doing.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See Steve's recommendation (my highlight): I'd advise the editors to work towards a consensus here before making edits. That is the meaning of slowing down. Would you agree to that? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Note, it is purely a recommendation, I've always said this in cases I mediate, that I cannot impose "rulings" or "orders", merely suggestions that I feel would be in the best interests of the mediation. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 06:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll continue to seek consensus before, during, and after editing. I won't wait for approval or request permission before making edits, as that would be antithetical to the philosophy of Wikipedia. I'll be especially careful with edits that concern topics on the current list of topics to mediate. In the past some disputes were added to the list precipitously, with little attempt to resolve them first. I hope that if any new disputes occur editors will do their best to resolve them without adding to the already long list here. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope that other editors, namely Momento, will also agree to this recommendation. He's apparently ignored the discussion on the talk page and made major edits against consensus. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Made edits against consensus? Could you show me diffs of which edits were made against consensus? <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 12:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I retract that charge. It'd be hard to say that there's a consensus for (or against) anything.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am still waiting for agreement to per Steve's recommendation "to work towards a consensus here before making edits." I'll continue to seek consensus before, during, and after editing.  is not what is being recommended. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting too, to see any response from Momento on this recommendation. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why will you need to wait? If Momento does not accept this, he will be forfeiting DR. I don't think he will do so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's see. So far he hasn't shown any tendency towards following the recommendation. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am happy to go along with Steve's suggestion, but the edits I want to make are more aimed at getting a more readable article, and through these articles I see the need for literally hundreds of them. Taking the recommendation too literally is going to be tedious. Rumiton (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed addition to
See:
 * Talk:Prem Rawat - "For the record, I think the whole intro is poor [...] I think it should be re-written from scratch." (Will Beback)
 * Talk:Prem Rawat
 * Talk:Prem Rawat

So, I propose to add this issue to the : "(Rewrite of) lead section of Prem Rawat article". --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with that being added. <font face="Lucida Calligraphy" color="blue">Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 14:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawal
Sorry, but I'll have to withdraw as co-mediator. I've been very busy with stuff here and there, and to be fank I wasn't really helping anyway. Hope you understand,  weburiedoursecrets inthegarden  18:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Straw polls

 * There is a straw poll at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal1. particiaption by everyone in mediation would help. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Upgrade to Formal Mediation?

 * I have received an email from a party requesting that the case be upgraded to formal mediation, with me continuing to mediate, and with an additional mediator from the committee co-mediating. I was wondering what the other parties thought? Best, Steve Public (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No objection from me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)


 * I've received email from the Mediation Committee. They have said that if all the parties agreed with the case proceeding to formal mediation, that the committee would accept it. I would continue on as an advisor to the mediator who accepts the case, who appears to be Anthony.

My instructions are to ask on this page, as to whether all the parties accept the progression to formal mediation, either accept, or reject. I am not going to try to manipulate you all to change your opinions, but I do strongly feel that formal mediation is a step in the direction for solving this case. Just make a note below, whether you accept or reject the idea of formal mediation. This will be used in lieu of an RFM, as far as I have been told by the chair. Best, <font face="Verdana" color="blue">Steve Crossin Contact/<font color="#CCC000">24 01:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Parties' agreement to formal mediation

 * All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here, please.'


 * 1) User:Will Beback - Agree ·:· Will Beback  ·:·
 * 2) User:Jossi - Agree ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) User:Momento- Agree.Momento (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) User:Jayen466 - Agree. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 07:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) User:Rumiton
 * 6) user:Maelefique - Agree. (sorry, I was out of town for a week, did y'all wait till I left to blow everything up? :) ) -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 07:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) user:Nik Wright2-- Agree. Subject to reservations posted under Plan A below.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) user:Sylviecyn -- Disagree Agree (reconsidered) Sylviecyn (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) user:John Brauns - Agree --John Brauns (talk) 10:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) User:Francis Schonken – Disagree &rarr; Agree &rarr; Disagree - this page is unmoderated by any MedCab moderator, the RFM should be held at WP:RFM. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) User:Savlonn - Agree. Savlonn (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In light of the objection from Francis, this won't be progressing to formal mediation at this time. Regards, <font face="Verdana" color="blue">Steve Crossin Contact/<font color="#CCC000">24 04:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) User:Taxed123 - Agree. --Taxed123 (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This request needs to be filed at WP:RFM: this is not the forum for such requests. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Jossi, Daniel, the acting chair of MedCom, directed me to post this on the case page, and not at RFM. You may confirm this with him if you wish, I am just following the procedure I have been advised to follow. <font face="Verdana" color="blue">Steve Crossin  Contact/<font color="#CCC000">24 06:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. No problems. This can remain as a record then. I would suggest that all other parties state their agreement or disagreement and give Francic some more time (FRM's give 7 days to parties to make up their minds, so at least we should follow the process here). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'm happy to wait the 7 days for this process to be completed, and in the meantime, I'll discuss plans with the other mediator. If Francis does change his mind and decides to accept formal mediaton, I will still be involved in the case through the same mediator as the one I intend to be involved in this case if it is rejected, so it is really a question of where the case will be held. <font face="Verdana" color="blue">Steve Crossin Contact/<font color="#CCC000">24 06:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Plan B

 * I don't fully understand why Francis is opposed to a different form of mediation, but I agree that all major contributors need to be participants for any form of mediation to succeed. My view is that we've had too little mediation, not too much. That is, we would benefit from a more "hands-on" mediation style, not necessarily from a more "formal" style. A mediation process that actively seeks to minimize differences and find common ground. (I've noticed that even as drafts come closer together we still tend to get bogged down by increasingly minor disputes rather than recognizing the larger agreements. An outside mediator can say "hey folks, just go with what you agree on and leave off the disputed part" in a way that participants can't.) I'd previously proposed changing this to formal mediation while retaining Steve's involvement as a co-mediator or advisor. The point of that wasn't to "formalize" mediation, and it certainly wasn't to change mediators, it was just to jumpstart the mediation with some fresh approaches.  This is a large, complex case with literally hundreds of thousands of words written in just the past six months, and an on-WP history going back four years. Steve has already expended the time and effort to review that history, and he shows a good understanding of the disputes.
 * Here's a "Plan B": How about we stay with "informal" mediation under the MedCab with Steve, but we request the MedCom to see if any of their people could serve as co-mediator or advisor. The 2nd mediator may be able to provide methods of resolving these tangled disagreements that we haven't tried yet. Would anyone object to simply bringing in a 2nd mediator? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * @Will: Certainly, that is, similarly, the predicted effect of changing to formal mediation. A number of our disputes are those that are not complicated on the content grounds, but are simply being actively hampered by parallel conduct issues. You seem to hit exactly what the MC offers in your comment above, actually. <font style="color:#2A8B31;font-family:sans-serif;">Anthøny 10:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I share Will's view that discussions would benefit from being moderated by an impartial facilitator who takes note of the various interests and concerns expressed and actively focuses on identifying a workable consensus between participants. I am sure such a consensus is there to be had; we just need someone who is dedicated to finding it, rather than being dedicated to representing their own POV, as all present participants are naturally inclined to do. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 14:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually Will, that's already been discussed and is likely what will happen, as long as you all agree for a second mediator to co-mediate with me, giving me a hand. I've already outlined before Will, that there are reasons I haven't been active for a while, personal issues. But I think these are settled now, and I can return to my active self again. I recommend User:AGK, and he is who I'll be having a chat with. Best, <font face="Verdana" color="blue">Steve Crossin Contact/<font color="#CCC000">24 05:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Plan A

 * We need to go ahead and file a RFM anyway. We need to give time to Francis to think it through and see if other editors can address his concerns, and if he does not lift his objection, it should be on the record as not willing to pursue this step on WP:DR.  I would encourage Francis to reconsider and encourage others to explain to Francis that there is really no downside to it.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossie, there is no formal restriction on the parties of this dispute filing a formal request for mediation. However, there's no obvious reason to do so: the Committee has formed a consensus (after private discussion) that the parties' agreement on this page (so long as it is at the above section) will be sufficient. So long as all parties agree above, the Committee will speedily accept this case, and progress it to "assigned" status. The Chair of the Committee will handle the 'paperwork' of the case: all that needs happen now, is everybody's signature. <font style="color:#2A8B31;font-family:sans-serif;">Anthøny 10:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Jossi, I'm not sure if MedCom would take the case, given the fact it has been rejected here, and this was in lieu of it being filed at RFM. As I said above, it's best to talk to Daniel, the acting chair. <font face="Verdana" color="blue">Steve Crossin Contact/<font color="#CCC000">24 06:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how formal mediation is going to change the situation with these articles. We already had ARBCOM with findings, and now we've been in MEDCAB for several months and the article hasn't moved forward much at all.  It's almost as if the Rawat articles -- especially the BLP one -- is like a big gaping wound on Wikipedia which only a very few people out of thousands of editors here, are willing to address as impartial observers.  So, instead of trying to fix the specific problems we have, a bigger bandage (formal mediation) is being placed on the same weeping, infected wound.  I honestly don't see any resolution(s) happening by going to formal mediation as it has many limitations, but I'm very willing to hear more arguments in favor of the same.  That said, I don't want to discuss this in bland generalities, rather, I want to know specific details as to how this case will be managed day to day to day and have some kind of warranty that I'm not going to be personally attacked, and if I am, that prompt action will occur against offenders.  As a sample question, is editor behavior going to be acted upon as well as content disputes?  Also, I want to have a strong commitment from Steve that he's going to have the time to familiarize himself with the content of the articles so that he can make sound judgements and recommendations, and I also want a commitment from Steve that he has the time to do this.  Until I can be convinced that formal mediation will add anything to this process, I vote no.  Thanks.  Sylviecyn (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sylviecyn: to put it as briefly as I can, formal mediation is a system better prepared to handle problems with editor conduct. As a team of experienced mediators, we are able of handling nearly any party, regardless of how poor he or she communicates and/or gets on with nearby editors. Proper decorum is mandatory on Committee mediation pages, and parties who attack on the MedCom's watch will be handled and counteracted as appropriate. Mediators are not security guards, but we do ensure the high standards of conduct are maintained. Strategies may be developed as a peripheral mini-project in the course of mediation, whereby parties will be required to agree to communicate properly and maintain civility and open communication, as well as agree to work for the benefit of the encyclopedia. That way, should any party begin to hamper the progress of resolving the dispute through his or her conduct, action can be swiftly taken by an uninvolved administrator. Put simply, things have been going not bad thus far with the MedCab, but it's time to pass this on to a body which specialises in on-Wiki mediation, and has on its team editors appointed for their skills at handling disputes -- no matter how difficult. All that I ask of you and the other parties, is that you give it a chance and agree to the mediation. <font style="color:#2A8B31;font-family:sans-serif;">Anthøny 19:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with Plan A (formal mediation), provided that the number of formal parties are limited per the distinct possibility in this sense offered by the relevant guidance. I was thinking along the lines of Jossi-Jayen-Will-John, so 4 parties. I suppose all others can choose among those four parties whom they lean closest to for representing their views. In that case I'd insist an invitation is posted on Msalt's user talk page: he's listed above still as a participant in this MEDCAB case, and I'm sure he would be inclined to indicate one of those four to represent him, if that's all he has to do at this point to help Wikipedia forward on the Rawat-related content. The same for PatW. And Rainer P., who has become active lately. Maybe even some others (Janice Rowe? - Andries? - ...) but at least all parties that were active when this MedCab started should be invited. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not willing to declare myself to be a member of any faction, pov, or group. No way, no how, ever, ever.  I'm already boxed in and labeled by editors on these articles and on Wikipedia, based on off-wiki issues.  I'm a free agent and intend to stay that way. Interesting idea, but no. :)  I'm not asking fellow-editors for a distinct plan of approach, rather I'm placing the onus on doing that upon the mediators.  Until then, my decision is no formal mediation.  Sylviecyn (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I think it's maybe time to remove all the proposal pages from Steve Crossin's userspace and make them part of the article talk pages. There was some confusion on Steve's part as to enforcing ARBCOM findings on his userpages.  Comments? Sylviecyn (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm ok to move these pages, but which article sub page would they be moved to? <font face="Verdana" color="blue">Steve Crossin Contact/<font color="#CCC000">24 21:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Prem Rawat talk pages, of course. Sylviecyn (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Assigning representatives in a dispute is a possibility offered by WP:MEDIATION. I would be happy to have Jayen as a representative, and to defer to him in the mediation. As for the concern pesented above, editors can ask another person to represent their views, regardless of grouping, POV, faction, or any other such matters. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that mediation concept/tool for the purposes of this topic for reasons stated above. Sylviecyn (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The 'representative' proposal in Plan A seems inherently more problematic than Plan B as set out by Will; given the choice between a 'representative' approach in Formal Mediation and Plan B, at this point I would prefer Plan B.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just note I am going on Wikibreak for a while. Anthony has my email so he can notify me of anything there. There have been personal issues that have been going on for the last 2 months or so, which explains the reason for my inactivity. I can tell you the circumstances, but not on wiki. Email is fine. <font face="Verdana" color="blue">Steve Crossin Contact/<font color="#CCC000">24 22:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reconsidered my decision and will be willing to try any variation of mediation except the representative approach. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My 2c worth is that I prefer plan A (looks like we're almost there), whilst I would also accept plan B. I am actually more optimistic now than I was 3 months ago, and I agree that more active moderation will help get this case over the line. What I have witnessed recently is a softening of the entrenched positions of most parties and an acceptance that a compromise 'that can be lived with' is better than never agreeing. However, I also wish to echo the comments that many skirmishes continue to relate to very trivial issues, and that this is where an experienced moderator can step in to help see the forest for the trees, actively pulling the debates away from the leaf level. Savlonn (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Plan B may not be viable due to Steve's semi-retirement. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)