Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-05-22/prem rawat

Where is the dispute?
Prem Rawat talk

Who is involved?

 * User:Momento
 * User:Rumiton
 * User:Will Beback
 * User:Savlonn
 * User:Maelefique
 * User:Rainer P.
 * User:Nik Wright2
 * User:Zanthorp
 * User: PatW

What is the dispute?
A sentence has been added to the lead of the Prem Rawat article. The sentence was added as part of a 91 edit revert so I have isolated it on my talk age under "The Sentence in Question".. The sentence introduces significant information that is not covered in the article. According to Wiki:Lede "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". The sentence introduces "world peace", "societal aims" and a change of emphasis in Rawat's focus, none of which are mentioned in the article. Some editors believe it should be removed because it doesn't conform to the requirements of a lead, other editors believe its non-conformity can be resolved by copying it into the article. Several editors believe the sentence is confused and contradictory and cannot go in the article as is and needs to be rewritten and qualified by adding additional material. We have been unable to reach consensus as to the correct approach.

How do you think we can help?
We need an uninvolved, neutral editor to help mediate this issue. Do we remove the sentence from the lead and then discuss whether it should go in the article. Or do we leave it in the lead and copy it into the article and then discuss whether it should be in the article? We have been discussing this for one month.

Mediator notes
It seems to me that there is no discrepancy between the lead and the article, though the information in the lead is slightly misleading, and should be edited to relfect the article. However, it may be best to add more information regarding this topic to the article.

Reccomendations
In the future, I would reccomend that all proposed changes to the article be discussed on the talk page. Also remember to keep cool heads, and don't bite the mediators' heads off!

Discussion
Momento's description of the sentence is less than accurate, the article talks about world peace several times, here are some snippets: Sounds like references to an attempt at world peace to me...
 *  he delivered an address known as the "Peace Bomb," which marked the start of his international work
 * Followers stressed "love, peace and happiness" in their lives
 * said that the event would mark the beginning of "a thousand years of peace for people who want peace"
 * Rawat said, "I have something far more precious to give them than money and material things – I give peace"

I think an attempt at world peace would be synonymous with an attempt to change societal aims as well.

And finally, the change in emphasis is simple to demonstrate. Originally he had ashrams set up to house his adherents, he then closed the ashrams suddenly and made large-scale reductions in his organization's staff. As well, as the article states:
 * In 1980, Rawat removed all the "religious" aspects of the movement and declared he now wanted "no movement whatsoever". The Hindu references and religious parables that had been prominent in his teachings gave way to a focus on the meditation techniques.
 * In 1983 the Divine Light Mission was renamed Elan Vital and Rawat closed the last western ashrams, marking the end of his use of Indian methods for international objectives.
 * In the 80s Rawat eliminated the Indian traditions and parables that had been prominent in his discourses and focused on the meditation techniques.
 * Practitioners describe Knowledge as internal and highly individual, with no associated social structure, liturgy, ethical practices or articles of faith

To suggest that Prem Rawat hasn't changed his methods and focus is ridiculous. The article clearly mentions world peace, societal goals, and direct references to a very large-scale change in Prem Rawat's techniques. Just thought I'd add my 2 cents for clarity here. Some editors on the article have a difficult time maintaining a neutral POV. I look forward to the mediation cabal's thoughts. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 21:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the sentence should be copied into the article merely to justify its inclusion in the lede section, as has been proposed on the discussion page. Rumiton and I have both explained that the sentence makes no sense.
 * A basic aim of society is to help individuals. Therefore, the sentence is, in effect stating, Though he originally aspired to bring about world peace, the idea being that peace would come to the world as individuals experienced inner peace, he now places his attention on helping individuals, which according to him takes priority over helping individuals.


 * The statement is obviously silly. Moreover, no other researcher that I am aware of makes such a claim about the subject's priorities. To me it looks like a fringe theory. For those reasons I think it should be removed from the lede section, and I don't see that it has a place anywhere else in the article either.


 * Its worth noting that editors working on BLPs generally tend to edit / argue according to their particular POV. That tendency is certainly not limited to this article. Wouldn't it be more constructive to apply common sense to disputes rather than argue from an entrenched position? --Zanthorp (talk) 08:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Can't argue with that, Zanthorp. Regarding Maelefique's selection of quotes above, to me the difference is between a person showing inner peace to individuals all over the world (which he has always done, and is arguably doing more of today than ever) and the kind of mass, perhaps political, approach to world problems (which I believe he has never undertaken) which is suggested by the term "world peace." His approach has always been towards individuals, "case-by-case" if you like. I am really having some difficulties working out why this simple idea has become such a problem lately. Rumiton (talk) 09:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But I do welcome anyone who can explain the controversy to me.Rumiton (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In the Gospel of Luke it says: "… et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis" ("… and peace on earth to men of good will "), that’s what the angels allegedly sang at Jesus’ birth, the only occasion BTW angels have been reported to sing. Sounds a lot like Maelefique’s above quote: the beginning of "a thousand years of peace for people who want peace". Still one would probably not mistake Jesus mainly for an advocate of world peace – yet at his time there seemed to have prevailed some confusion over this issue, which ultimately killed him – in combination with his obviously ambiguous statements on his god- vs. human nature, sort of making it superficially easy for his enemies to accuse him, allowing them a pretext for demagogic righteous indignation. Sounds familiar, too, doesn’t it? Mind (not only the notorious fascist type) does not do well with ambiguity. Maybe this explains some of the controversy.--Rainer P. (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Vote
Please place a "Remove" or "Keep" or "Move" vote here regarding the sentence. Please explain your vote.
 * Moving the sentence is another option, so that should be one of the possible votes.   Will Beback    talk    19:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Remove. It isn't represented in the article, so it shouldn't be in the Lead. It is a badly constructed, internally contradicting, exceptional claim that can't appear in the article in it's current form.Momento (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Remove. In addition to its other failings, it...doesn't...make...sense. Rumiton (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Move. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the sentence and the objections to it are based on I just don't like it--Nik Wright2 (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep:. but it is rather clumsily put. I would lose "the idea being that peace would come to the world as individuals experienced inner peace" bit, so it simply reads:  "Though he originally aspired to bring about world peace he now places his attention on helping individuals, which according to him takes priority over such societal aims." For the reasons stated by Maelefique above this is a relevant issue. It interestingly informs the reader that Rawat himself (not the organisation per se) prioritised a different approach in time.PatW (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Remove. To suggest that Prem Rawat hasn't changed his methods and focus is ridiculous, I agree with Maelefique there concerning the methods, but not the focus. This issue can certainly be placed skillfully into the teachings-section, and then be condensed into the lede.--Rainer P. (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and move. Keep the existing material and move it to the "teachings" section.   Will Beback    talk    12:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and add/move makes the most sense to me. The sentence is still accurate and descriptive for a brief summary of PR's timeline, and small amount of text in the article would make the problem disappear. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 22:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Remove. My apology for the late vote. The discussion clearly shows that the sentence is controversial. If no other source makes the same claim I favor removing it. The fringe theory argument appears to make sense, and clearly, the disputed sentence makes no sense. --Zanthorp (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)