Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat 6

Case Closure
Based on the advice of the Mediation Committee, this case will close. The mediation broke down after a party demanded a change in mediator, alleging that the mediator had misinterpreted content policy [he might equivocate with WP:OR] mistakenly and then maliciously. The committee did not agree that such a change was warranted. As a result MedCom is considering referring the case to ArbCom.

For the Mediation Committee

Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 11:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I didn't "demand a change in mediator", I "asked for a change of mediator as per - Requests for a change of mediator under the second condition should be submitted stating precisely why the mediator is not performing satisfactorily". And I did so because a) Seddon contravened WP:OR by claiming in his second post that a source supports a position that it does not and was "an analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the source", b) when I pointed this out to him he didn't correct it  and c) when I directly asked him to address my concern he didn't reply. The error is bad enough but to ignore someone's sincere concern when directly asked for a response is extraordinary behaviour for a mediator.  I concluded my email to MED:COM with "In conclusion, I am not interested in being a part of a mediation where the mediator makes such a fundamental error and then ignores discussing it when raised".Momento (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Even though the editors on the article page in question don't agree with you, and the entire medcom committee didn't agree with your policy interpretation either. I guess it's off to ArbCom, not unexpected. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 00:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised to find out that all the editors on the talk page think Seddon shouldn't reply to me, particularly when I asked him to?Momento (talk) 03:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I would be too. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 05:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't make a comment about the non-response of Seddon to Momento either way, so saying "all" isn't correct, Momento.  I've been busy so I hadn't written anything on this page, although I was reading it.  That said, I'm disappointed with this outcome because the mediation was cancelled before it barely got off the ground.  I thought that it would take some time for Seddon (or any mediator) to get up to speed on this article (given the contentiousness of many issues) so I don't see what the hurry was to wait for a response.  I also was encouraged by Seddon's ability to cut through the opinionated comments that have no bearing on the direct issue of this edit.  But, I still don't see the necessity of arguing the point of whether or note Rawat actually said the words "I am God."  He never said those words that I know of, but he certainly promoted himself as a God in a Bod. I think this is an issue that will never be resolved due to the lack of secondary sources that support adherants' position on this.  Oh well, par for the course, I guess.  Hope everyone's well otherwise.  Sylviecyn (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was commenting on Maelefique's claim that "the editors on the article page don't agree with me"! He didn't say "some" or "most", which was why I was surprised he would say such a thing since it clearly isn't true. Once again I am blamed for someone else's error.Momento (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Once again, you're mistaken. If you had read the entire sentence (much like policy pages) you would see I was talking about your interpretation of WP:OR which you keep mentioning. Nothing to do with Seddon at all. Never has been. Once again, .
 * And Sylvie, there was only the smallest chance that anything less than ArbCom was ever going to solve this issue, it's just a mandatory step on the way, it's all part of the process, so don't be too disappointed. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 02:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm quite disappointed because Seddon was being impartial and was assuming good faith of everyone here. He was interpreting Wiki policies correctly, imo.  It takes anyone significant time to get up to snuff on the Rawat articles and I expected that Seddon would need to do that, too.  There was never any urgency to resolve the edit that brought us here.  One editor took it upon himself to contact the committee requesting a change of mediator, when the process had only just begun.  While the mediation guidelines allow for that type of request via private email, I believe Momento usurped this whole process, again.  I was being patient until the issue was resolved.  Now it's gonna take even longer.  I was part of the last two ARBCOMs and I remember those findings well.   But, since it's a gorgeous spring day here in Vermont, I'm going outside to enjoy it!  Be well and see you in the next phase. :) Sylviecyn (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Now I am confused. Since no editor has commented on my "interpretation" of Seddon, how can you know they don't agree with me.Momento (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with you.PatW (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible " style="background: transparent; text-align: left; padding: 0.5em; border: 2px solid grey; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #AAA; font-size: 110%; padding: 2px;" | Click 'show' to view full details of the closed case
 * style="text-align:center; font-style:italic;" | The actual mediation proceedings are on the talk page attached to this request. Please do not modify those discussions or this page.
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; font-size:112%;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; font-size:112%;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; font-size:112%;" |

Now what?
Sooo... what happens now? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 23:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Lets get underway
Sorry for the delay in getting this underway. RL creeps up on you in strange ways. I have been reading over the somewhat failed RFC and this request and it seems pretty clear what the issues are so rather than getting bogged down into asking peoples opinions of what the issue is here I would like to just get stuck in and see what the issues here are. So based on the request page the questions we need to answer are:


 * Has Rawat claimed to be God in the past and how has that changed since the 1980s?

Since this mediation and all editing on the project has to follow the projects rules on sourcing as well as that preferably our sourcing should be from secondary sources and free from interpretation, what we need is secondary sources claiming that Prem Rawat has at some point said he was god. If such sources exist then they in all likelihood deserve a place within this article. However, if such sources do not exist, then wikipedia is in no place to make such claims. Subsequently if there are then counter-sources, that refute such claims, what we have their is to some degree a "controversy". Currently in the text I don't see anything on him claiming to be god himself, are their diffs that I could look over? In summary we need sources that state Rawat claimed to be god or that he made such claims and they were false. Do we reckon this is possible? Remember that wikipedia is effectively here to report what others have said, not to make our own judgements. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 13:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Is their controversy over this?


 * Seddon, you've oversimplified the issue, and that's not what my issue to be mediated says. I don't know of a "I am God." quote, and I've never said there was one. What the issue is, is that he has allowed people to think he was God, he's intimated he was God, he has not denied he was God, and on other occasions, he has denied it, he's given misleading answers, and contradictory answers. Even the pro-Rawat editors here admit that some of the things he's said are accurate, but blame the interpretation on the difference between Indian views and Western views on things such as "Lord". That's the controversy. I have further questions too.
 * Did you look at all the sources from Momento claiming that it was the media saying he was God? Those would be the secondary sources wouldn't they?
 * What about Milton in the	ENCYCLOPEDIC HANDBOOK OF CULTS, page 220, "Finally, without public announcement, in the early 1980s, Maharaj Ji ordered all of the ashrams disbanded, though local informal gatherings (primarily in members' homes) were not discouraged. Maharaj Ji was no longer to be venerated as God." If he has to make an announcement after 10 years, to his own flock, it seems there's been some confusion/controversy about his status, even among those who should be the most informed, no?
 * I'm also not sure if you're saying that his speech, the Peace Bomb (1970), where he says "But when the Lord saw that the troubles His devotees were having to endure had reached the final point, He said, "My devotees can bear it no longer", and then manifested Himself in a human body. So He has now come to reveal the lost Knowledge and to restore true peace. The Lord, the True Saint, the True Guru Maharaj Ji has incarnated in this world.", does not sound like that's what he's saying to you? (many more examples available, but I don't want to swamp you, and I think they probably all need to be dealt with and either accepted or ruled out)-- Mael e fique (t a lk) 14:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks for the response. Apologies if you think I have oversimplified, that was just laying down what are the core questions that we are attempting to answer whether or not it is precisely what this mediation is here for.
 * You sum up the problem quite nicely "is that he has allowed people to think he was God, he's intimated he was God, he has not denied he was God, and on other occasions, he has denied it, he's given misleading answers, and contradictory answers." and its important to frame (probably worth a section in the article by itself) discussing the discussion with regards to the deification. But in this instance there is a big difference between using the first source (Milton) and the second source (the peace bomb quote above). The first source is, as you say, a secondary source and so we can use that to help show that people thought that Prem Rawat considered himself god. However the second source should only be used as direct quotation. Ideally it should not be used in a way that involves any sort of original synthesis. We need to really on other peoples reports.
 * Would it be possible for you to create a list (create it here rather than linking elsewhere, lets keep this case self contained) of secondary sources that discuss any of the points of. Around that we can then build direct quotations from the primary source (in this instance transcripts or direct writings by prem rawat). Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 04:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I Only provided those two sources above as examples of both types. Yes, we can certainly build a list of sources here, only secondary sources, no quotes from Rawat himself. I think we should probably cap the list at about 25 sources though, I don't see a point in writing an article on just this one topic, *maybe* a small section will be required, only because I think both sides of it take a little explaining. As you may have noticed on the talk page, I did suggest that, and included a few section titles as well. Anyways, on to the list (I will start that in the morning, any other editors feel free to jump in before I get back). -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 05:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think this mediation is going to be successful if we don't follow basic Wiki policy, particularly WP:OR. Melton's quote doesn't "show that people thought that Prem Rawat considered himself god". It says nothing about what Rawat thought. It is a reliable source for three specific things, a) That early in the 1980s, Maharaj Ji ordered all of the ashrams disbanded, b) that local informal gatherings were not discouraged (but who or what "didn't discourage" is not specified), and c) that Maharaj Ji was no longer to be venerated as God (but not stipulated who or what made that decision). It doesn't in any way, shape or form support Seddon's contention that it "shows that people thought that Prem Rawat considered himself god". In fact, Rawat was telling people not to venerate him as God from the time he first arrived in the west. He even made fun of the idea "The world thinks, people think, God is a man. People think God has ears, nose, teeth, and he rises early in the morning, brushes his teeth, washes out his mouth and he is an old man so he brushes out his beard also. But no, God is energy. God is perfect and pure energy, and that is why scientists say that energy cannot be destroyed and cannot be created". Momento (talk) 06:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seddon, could you please respond to my comment that your claim that "Melton's quote shows that people thought that Prem Rawat considered himself god" is not supported by the quote and is "an analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the source".Momento (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Secondary Sources list of "God Claims"/"God Denials" and published discussion of either
1) Melton,Gordon - Encyclopedic handbook of cults in America, p. 220, "Finally, without public announcement, in the early 1980s, Maharaj Ji ordered all of the ashrams disbanded, though local informal gatherings (primarily in members' homes) were not discouraged. Maharaj Ji was no longer to be venerated as God."


 * p.220 "In any case Hans Maharaj Ji claimed a Sant Mat succession which he passed to Maharaj Ji. Maharaj Ji, as do many of the other Sant Mat leaders, claims to be a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God on earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration."

2) Preface, And It Is Divine (DLM Newsletter/booklet published through the 70s and 80s) - "Dear Reader, By the grace of Almighty Lord, we bring you the magazine And It Is Divine. You will find this magazine very different from others, because it shows not only the suffering of the world, but also a way out for all humanity. 'There has never been a time when the Lord of Creation did not manifest Himself in human form, and come to this planet Earth to do away with evil and spread the True Knowledge'."

3) The New York Times, April 8, 1973 "The Delhi headquarters of the Divine Light Mission is like a fortress: an 8-foot-high wall with an iron-grilled gate encloses a courtyard and a complex of buildings consisting of offices, reception rooms, kitchen, refectory, dormitories, a temple and the residential Suite of Balyogeshwar, the Child God"
 * note to mediator, Balyogeshwar is Prem Rawat

4) GREAT BEND TRIBUNE, Great Bend, Kansas Sunday, September 23, 1973 - EDITOR's NOTE: To a swelling number of followers, Guru Maharaj Ji is the "Perfect Master". 'Some even call him God.' But to others, he is a pudgy, 15-year-old business titan who processes his disciples through a personnel department and keeps track of them with a computer. Here is a look at the guru and his mushrooming missionary corporation.

5) MALCOLM N. CARTER Associated Press Page A6 THE STARS AND STRIPES, Sunday, November 4, 1973 THEN CAME the guru with a promised path to inner serenity and an answer to life's great questions. To his fervid followers, he is God himself.

6) Collier, Sophia, Soul Rush, p. 122 "As the Mahatma said in my Knowledge session, "To me, Guru Maharaj Ji is my divine father ... he is the Lord himself standing on the earth.""
 * p. 162 "After he accepted the award, an underground-newspaper reporter came rushing up to Maharaj Ji and, in what the reporter described as "a protest against God," hit Maharaj Ji in the face with a shaving cream pie."
 * p. 225 "I knew that if I asked this question seriously I might just find out that Maharaj Ji did think he was God."
 * p. ??? ( page no. missing in my notes, but I have the book, can find it again if I need to) " There are those who sincerely believe that Guru Maharaj Ji is the Lord of Creation here in the flesh to save the world. "

7) Time Magazine, Apr. 28, 1975, Religion: One Lord Too Many, "He may look like just another plump, pubescent lad, but the 17-year-old Guru Maharaj Ji is worshiped as the "Lord of the Universe" by devotees* of the Divine Light Mission in many countries round the world." 8) Lans, Jan van der and Frans Derks, "Premies Versus Sannyasins" in "Update: A Quarterly Journal on New Religious Movements", X/2 (June 1986) "DLM and Rajneeshism are comparable in that in both, the Indian guru is the central object of devotion. While in the Christian tradition the spiritual master is only an intermediate between the individual and God, standing outside their personal relation, in both these new religious movements the devotee's relation with the guru is considered identical to his relation with God. The guru is accepted as the manifestation and personification of God. His request for total surrender and complete trust is grounded in his claim of ultimate authority derived from his godliness.'" 9) Downton, Sacred Journeys. "During 1971, there were social forces encouraging the development of millenarian beliefs within the Mission. They were developed in part by the carryover of millennial thinking from the counterculture; by the psychological trappings of surrender and idealization; by the guru's mother, whose satsang was full of references to his divine nature; and partly by the guru, himself, for letting others cast him in the role of the Lord."
 * p. 199 "Although there were still residues of belief in his divinity, in 1976, the vast majority [of premies] viewed the guru primarily as their spiritual teacher, guide, and inspiration but his appearance at an event on December 20th, 1976 in Atlantic City, New Jersey, wearing a Krishna costume for the first time since 1975, signaled a resurgence of devotion and Indian influence. Rawat was elevated to a much greater place in the practice of Knowledge, many people returned to ashram life and there was a shift back from secular tendencies towards ritual and messianic beliefs and practices."

10) Rolling Stone Magazine, Issue 145 - Oct. 11, 1973 - "Perfect Master On the Ropes?", "Our informant told us that the teenaged Holy Person may, in fact, finally reveal to the world who he actually is. Some of us have speculated on the possibility that he may announce flat-out that he is God. Others feel that this may be presumptuous in a 15-year-old and point out that Jesus didn't announce until he was 30. A consensus opinion is that the guru will opt for an interim status such as Son of God, or Chosen Speaker. A viable alternative involves various reincarnations: Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha or some cosmic combination." 11) Vogue magazine, Ken Kelley, March 1974, "An East Indian Teen-Ager Says He Is God", "''Shunning the austere, simple life of traditional godheads, he has decided to make the best of his self-proclaimed divinity. ... "Last time around the Messiah came as a beggar," says Rennie Davis. "This time he's come as a King!" ''
 * Note to mediator, Rennie Davis was a spokesperson for the DLM (Prem Rawat's organization) at this time

12) Playboy Magazine, Robert Sheer, June 1974, "Death of a Salesman", "God, alive and walking around on the planet, the source of all creation, here now, with a plan to end all poverty, racism, sexism and other suffering." (referring to Maharaj Ji) 13) Los Angeles Times, Robert Sheer, April 1, 1977, "How I was Stood up By The Venusians", "However, there was one time when I got to cover God and experienced the full rapture of tens of thousands of believers cast suddenly into his presence here on Earth. That was at a weeklong encampment at the Houston Astrodome in 1973, when God appeared as a chubby and giggly 13-year-old Indian named Guru Mahara Ji"
 * "That was for the followers, but different rules, as could be expected, applied to that self-proclaimed God who appeared in the Astrodome."
 * "I began muttering over and over to myself, frightened by the realization that a steady diet of soybean paste on rice cakes combined with sleep deprivation and surrounded by tens of thousands of people who truly believed this boy was God had started me down the road to a nervous breakdown."

14) Radio interview with Bob Mishler, Radio Station KOA, Denver, Feb 12, 1979, "I had persuaded him to see that he was going to lose his popularity and ability to do any good at all in this country, if he became a cult leader. If he continued to allow his devotees to believe that he was God, that was inevitable. He agreed, and we started de-programming our own membership and telling them to see Maharaji as only a human being who had a great concern for humanity."
 * Note to mediator, Bob Mishler was the president of the DLM (working out of Denver) from 1972 to 1977, he was fired in 1977 when Rawat decided to take a more direct control of the organisation, and because of the growing distance between Bob's goals and direction for the DLM, and Prem Rawat's (I believe that's correct, if it's not, I'm sure someone will correct me very soon), whatever the reason, my understanding is that it was not an amicable separation.

15) Sociological Analysis Vol. 39 No. 2 by Association for the Sociology of Religion, Foss & Larkin, "Worshiping the Absurd: The Negation of Social Causality among the Followers of Guru Maharaj Ji", "Thus, divested of the necessity of making sense out of the material world, they could accommodate themselves to the resurgence of dominant institutions by conforming in the name of Guru Maharaj Ji for the purposes of spreading his Knowledge of the universal Truth which could only known through the worshiping of a God who made no sense."

16) Messer, Jeanne, "Guru Maharaj Ji and the Divine Light Mission" in The New Religious Consciousness by Charles Y. Glock and Robert N. Bellah, 1976, p.52-72 "For Maharaj Ji's devotees, fixed referents begin to dissolve as they practice meditation. New initiates are caught up in the same dogmatic and philosophical questions that most of us are. "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?" is answered in terms of new cosmologies designed to fit this young man into the universe, into history, and into the major religions as well as one's own experience and philosophy. Common answers from new initiates, for example, are that Guru Maharaj Ji is Christ, that Christ has been on the earth many times, as Jesus, as Buddha, as Mohammed, as Krishna, or that Christ has always been on the earth (this inferred from Guru Maharaj Ji's assertion that there is always a Perfect Master on the earth). Others assert that he is God himself, but still others that he is simply a guru, of whom there are many, with remarkable power."
 * "Guru Maharaj Ji's devotees have met God in the flesh, as many understand their experience, and their gratitude and enthusiasm dominate their lives and activity."

17) Carrol Stoner and Jo Anne Parke, "All Gods Children: The Cult Experience - Salvation Or Slavery?", 1977, p. 77, "Premies learn that their guru is a messiah in a direct line of Perfect Masters that includes Jesus Christ, Buddha, Mohammed, Lord Krishna, Shri Hans (the young guru's late father), and the guru himself. The issue of conflict between Divine Light teachings and Christianity or Judaism is seen in the answer to a premie's question: "Just who is the Guru Maharaj Ji?" The answer often given by other premies is, "The Guru Maharaj Ji is God."
 * "Divine Light leaders seem to think their Mission has more of a future if it concentrates on becoming a business which trains people in the techniques of meditation and discipline than it does if it continues as a religion, worshiping the contemporary incarnation of God."

18) Charles Cameron, "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?", 1973, back cover "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?" -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 05:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

from Collier, Sophia, Soul Rush - back cover: ""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, '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.'"" PatW (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

break

 * Actually none are God claims and none are Rawat making claims. They are all other people's, often facetious, opinions.Momento (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * i think that is what it should be. Secondary sources making statements about his divinity. No quotes, no OR. I think the issue is indeed contradictory and not as plain simple as you want to put with your quotation above. Surdas (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You know there is a difference between being "God" and being "divine".Momento (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The word "divine", while mentioned in concert with other more obvious terms, is not the focus in the secondary sources above, the word most often used is "God". We should try not to confuse the issues being discussed. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 15:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting involved in this guys :) Much appreciated.

break

 * Did not Eric Clapton claim to be God? And why was Elvis Presley never accused for assumption of authority, when he claimed to be the king of Las Vegas?--Rainer P. (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * From our article on Elvis: :...Elvis. He is often referred to as the "King of Rock and Roll" or simply "the King".", "At the time, Presley was variously billed as "The King of Western Bop",...", "At a press conference after the show, when a journalist referred to him as "The King", Presley gestured toward Fats Domino, who was taking in the scene. "No," Presley said, "that's the real king of rock and roll."". So I guess it's safe to say they didn't ignore that idea there, and it's certainly a more serious issue in our article, so there's no reason we should ignore the idea here. But I think we've gotten off track. The Mediator asked specifically for a list of secondary sources, I've started to provide one. That's all. And like in the Elvis article, no one's questioning his claim, we are just trying not to ignore the fact that there was one.


 * Also from our article on Clapton, "Clapton's sound and playing inspired a well-publicised graffiti that deified him with the famous slogan "Clapton is God". The phrase was spray-painted by an admirer on a wall in an Islington Underground station in the autumn of 1967.", So I guess it's safe to say the topic was mentioned there too, I think those are two good examples, but I'm not sure they are supporting your point. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 14:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually they do support my point. Because nowhere in the Elvis or Clapton articles does it say that they claimed or were believed to claim being God. It was just said by others, and, as in our case Momento correctly assessed, often facetiously. Likewise, Rawat never claimed to be God, but even explicitely dismissed the idea without exception. That's what even some of your sources say. That he was revered for presenting a gift that could be experienced as divine is something really different. But still even your or PatW's most sensationalistic sources do not state that he claimed being God. And they would haved squealed with glee, had they been able to! So, when even the mass media made that distinction, we should not planish the issue to a lower level. When people thought he was God, he always corrected them, that is what is sourced. Maybe we can agree on a sourcable sentence containing that.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct Rainer. None of the sources supplied have Rawat saying "I am God" and that's what is required by WP:OR.Momento (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Rainer, your assertion that he *always* corrected people who claimed he was God is definitely WP:OR. It is simply not a known fact. We have 1 quote that I am aware of where he states he is not God, and another quote where he says God is only energy, and another quote where he says something else, and another quote where he says something else. All of this is beside the point right now, Seddon asked for secondary sources, not quotes from Rawat. This is what I started to compile, it is by no means, as you know, a complete, or even close to complete, list of sources like this. Unless Seddon wants to change the current focus, I don't think we should be talking about quotes from Rawat right now, since he specifically eliminated them from this part of the discussion. I assume Seddon will clarify that if needed when he reads this. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 22:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) People ask, ‚"Do you say that you are God?‚" I say, ‚"No, I am not God. . . . . . . I don't want to be God.‚" Johannesburg, South Africa, 2 May, 1972.
 * 2) Reporter: "I was told that probably the best question to ask you, out of sincerity, is: who are you?" Maharaj Ji: ... "really I can't say who I am. But, though, there is a very basic thing, what I feel about myself. And that is that people have been claiming me as God or as Jesus or so on, and ah, many television people have been asking this question, and this is an interesting question of course. I thought maybe you will interested in the answer. I am not Jesus and I am not God or so on, but I am just a humble servant of God, and I am preaching this Knowledge ... I don't claim myself to be God. I don't claim myself to be something like that, but I can claim I can show you God". Montrose, Colorado, 25 July, 1972.
 * 3) Question: "Guru Maharaji Ji, are you God?" – Answer: "No. My Knowledge is God". Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?, (November 1973), Bantam Books, Inc.Momento (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * my knowledge is god? So in this sentence he claims that he owns god, since the techniques cannot be god, in other examples he says Guru Maharaji is allpowerfull, creator, destroyer etc. and than we have denials of that just how it fits him suitable.I don't think it's constructive to only focus on the denials of those claims. Maybe you better change to jossi's and zappaz's claims, that he was reffering to his father only when adressing the superior power, on the other hand he tought that only the living master should be adored.....contradictory like i said Surdas (talk) 05:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent, now we have 3 examples, which just goes to show, it's not an isolated denial, so, ergo, more confusion. However, again, we are still not discussing quotes from Rawat at this time, so I am not going to list a bunch of quotes where he doesn't deny it, unless Seddon asks for them. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 00:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Where's the confusion? Three specific denials plus three or four quotes of Rawat saying "human beings can't be God". And not one quote from Rawat saying "I am God". And not even a source saying "Rawat said he was God". If any one is confused they only need to read what Rawat said to be enlightened.Momento (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Seddon, do you need more secondary sources than that? I can keep adding them if needed, but if the point is already made, I won't bother listing additional ones, let me know please. tnx.-- Mael e fique (t a lk) 15:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Taking a step back for the moment :)
Lets just take this a step at a time ok guys. I am glad this discussion is happening, this is genuinely constuctive in parts and it is something that needs to happen. Lets just try and extend to everyone a good amount of good faith, attacks veiled or otherwise will make this process more painful for everyone. I have cut a load of the discussion that's not on topic or useful to anyone. Please if you see me do this, don't revert me. Its just to keep things focused. I hadn't responded previously because I was giving time for people to post. If you could give me 24 hours to read through and mull over what's been said If people have more secondary sources that they feel give an opinion of one side or another then please post them in the above section. Lets keep the commenting on the references down to zero for the moment. Also I will be posting some questions in the next few days that I would like people to ask. When I do, please do not comment on other peoples responses, nor use your responses as rebuttals to others. It's important for me to gauge where people stand.

Finally, everyone needs to understand that the ultimate aim of this mediation is to find a compromise solution that is in line with policy. I think its fairly clear that there are many conflicting statements and our aim should be to document that and try to present it in a fair and balanced way. Everyone here needs to be on board with that aim. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 18:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that's what we should be doing here. If I read that correctly, you'd like more secondary sources if possible, so I will add a few more. Thanks for helping to keep us focused, I have no problem with you trimming irrelevant text, it's easy to wander off into "discussion" that's off-point at times. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 00:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Not entirely sure how rigid your suggestion is that we don't comment on quotes. I won't elaborate and please - remove my comments if you wish - but having spent a lot of time arguing this in the past I would like offer my brief conclusion as to what the article should say on this matter. I think the Collier quote (I just added above) is particularly germane because it neatly expresses how Rawat (Maharaji) spoke 'out of both sides of his mouth' on the matter of his divinity. The contended sin the Rawat article commits is that it amplifies the one-sided viewpoint. ie. that Rawat HAS made a definitive statement that he is 'NOT God'. To present a balanced view it should, at the very least, make it clear that he has consistently suggested the opposite to those who would like to believe so. PatW (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be helpful to have two sections - God Claims etc and God Denials etc.Momento (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You want a separate section for the total of zero secondary sources you've provided so far? Ok with me. Secondary sources means quotes from sources that support your position, without quoting Rawat. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 14:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you get off a dead horse without looking, well, say, funny?--Rainer P. (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Would that be the "there's no controversy at all" horse that brought us all here, or some other one? -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 14:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)|}