Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Section zero

After a long pause I'm feeling able to give this page a new visit. I'd like suggest an important but editorial only change, which may nevertheless be difficult to achieve due to the conflicting views of editors:

• Re-structure the article start to achieve a standard intro sentence and a shorter intro section, distributing the existing overly long intro section to other sections are making it a section one.

Rationale: According to Wikipedia:Lead section section zero should be a concise introduction into the topic. And if applicable, in a longer lead section, the first sentence should establish a very concise definition of the topic.

So any takers for fitting first sentence? You may look into your favorite paper encyclopedia for inspirations (did Rawat get an entry in any paper encyclopedia?). The problematic part will be to agree on the "is a" part.

de: did try: Prem Pal Singh Rawat (geboren am 10. Dezember 1957 in Dehradun, Uttaranchal, Indien) ist ein geistiger Führer und Meditationslehrer.

Pjacobi 07:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Geistiger Führer"? "Mental leader"? Momento 10:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"spiritual leader". --Pjacobi 10:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Peter. I will check the paper encyclopedias to see how they have defined Prem Rawat in these. There are several listed in the references. May take me a couple of days. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest "an advocate of peace", he is not a "spiritual leader" and whilst he may teach a meditation, it is not an appropriate description.Momento 22:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"advocate of peace" doesn't establish notability. Out of all people I know, perhaps half are advocates of peace. The intro sentence should not only be concise and corrrect, it should also establish notability. --Pjacobi 07:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

PR's notability results from the fact that he has been a vocal "advocate of peace" since the age of 4. Were half the people you know talking at meetings about peace at aged four? Did any of them address a million people on the subject whilst still at school? And did any of your friends address over a milliion people about peace last year? Momento 20:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have checked in the library several encyclopedias and these describe the young Prem Rawat upon his arrival to the West as "religious leader", "spiritual leader", and "spiritual teacher", sometimes interchangeable on the same encyclopedia. The "leadership" is always related to the Divine Light Mission, and as the description of his life progresses that title dissipates an even specifically withdrawn (Melton 2003, Lippy 2002, Miller 1995). I would argue that his notability of today is different than his notability 30 years ago, and that is one of the challenges in attaching a label. While at the library, I found what is possible the most recent study of Prem Rawat, made by Stephen Hunt, a sociologist in his Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction, The reference below is a transcription in full (pp.116-7).

By Stephen J. Hunt Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction (2003), pp.116-7, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 0-7546-3410-8

The leader of the Divine Light Mission, the Guru Maharaji, was 13 years old when he spectacularly rose to fame in the early 1970's. It was his young age which made him different from other eastern gurus who had established similar Hindu-inspired movements at the time. He was the son of Shri Hans Ji Maharaj, who began the DLM in India in 1960, based on the teachings of his own variety of enlightenment through the acquisition of spiritual knowledge. When his father died in 1966, the Guru Maharaji announced himself as the new master and started his own teaching. His global tour in 1971 helped to establish a large following in Britain and the USA. In 1973, he held what was intended to have been a vast, much publicized event in the Houston Astrodome. 'Millenium '73' was mean to launch the spiritual millenium, but the event attracted very few and had little wider influence.

Perhaps because of this failure, Maharaji transformed his initial teachings in order to appeal to a Western context. He came to recognize that the Indian influences on his followers in the West were a hindrance to the wider acceptance of his teachings. He therefore changed the style of his message and relinquished the the Hindu tradition, beliefs, and most of its original eastern religious practices. Hence, today the teachings do not concern themselves with reincarnation, heaven, or life after death. The movement now focuses entirely on "Knowledge", which is a set of simple instructions on how adherents should live. This Westernization of an essentially eastern message is not seen as a dilemma or contradiction. In the early 1980's, Maharaji altered the name of the movement to Elan Vital to reflect this change in emphasis. Once viewed by followers as Satguru or Perfect Master, he also appears to have surrendered his almost divine status as a guru. Now, the notion of spiritual growth is not derived, as with other gurus, from his personal charisma, but from the nature of his teachings and its benefit to the individual adherents to his movement. Maharaji also dismantled the structure of ashrams (communal homes).

The major focus of Maharaji is on stillness, peace, and contentment within the individual, and his 'Knowledge' consists of the techniques to obtain them. Knowledge, roughly translated, means the happiness of the true self-understanding. Each individual should seek to comprehend his or her true self. In turn, this brings a sense of well-being, joy, and harmony as one comes in contact with one's "own nature." The Knowledge includes four secret meditation procedures: Light, Music, Nectar and Word. The process of reaching the true self within can only be achieved by the individual, but with the guidance and help of a teacher. Hence, the movement seems to embrace aspects of world-rejection and world-affirmation. The tens of thousands of followers in the West do not see themselves as members of a religion, but the adherents of a system of teachings that extol the goal of enjoying life to the full.

For Elan Vital, the emphasis is on individual, subjective experience, rather than on a body of dogma. The teachings provide a kind of practical mysticism. Maharaji speaks not of God, but of the god or divinity within, the power that gives existence. He has occasionally referred to the existence of the two gods—the one created by humankind and the one which creates humankind. Although such references apparently suggest an acceptance of a creative, loving power, he distances himself and his teachings from any concept of religion. It is not clear whether it is possible to receive Knowledge from anyone other than Maharaji. He claims only to encourage people to "experience the present reality of life now." Leaving his more ascetic life behind him, he does not personally eschews material possessions. Over time, critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle and argue that it is supported largely by the donations of his followers. However, deliberately keeping a low profile has meant that the movement has generally managed to escape the gaze of publicity that surrounds other NRMs.

This study, in my view, is accurate in broad terms, and highlights the challenge we have in responding to the "he is a" question posed by Peter. Note that I have checked other biographies in WP, and not all of them has a "he is a" in the lead. So we may be better re-writing the lead in such a way as to describe Prem Rawat's notoriety and evolution as per Hunt's. For example, we could say in the opening sentence something along the lines of:

Prem Pal Singh Rawat, also called Maharaji was born on December 10, 1957 in Dehradun, India[1]. He rose to fame in the 1970' upon his arrival to the West as the 13 year-old Guru Maharaj Ji, offering an experience called "Knowledge" which he describes it as taking "all your senses that have been going outside all your life, turn them around and put them inside to feel and to actually experience you".[2] In the 1980's he transformed his initial teachings in order to appeal to a Western context, droping the title of "guru" and relinquishing associated Indian traditions and beliefs, while focusing on the possibility of people achieving peace, contentment and self-understanding through his teachings. [providing Hunt's as a source for this sentence]

We can then proceed with a short summary of the article, reducing the current lead to three or four short paragraphs as per WP:LEAD. Any material that we lose from the lead, can be moved to the appropriate section in the article's body, and add information from Hunt's article to these sections that may benefit from it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your research. As a first comment, I'm somewhat at odds with the "Knowledge" part, as you will remember. So for

called "Knowledge" which he describes it as taking "all your senses that have been going outside all your life, turn them around and put them inside to feel and to actually experience you".[2]

I would rather substitute something along the lines of

called "Knowledge", a meditation technique to be strictly kept secret by the adepts.

Pjacobi 16:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be close to OR, Peter. We shall be better off by citing Prem Rawat himself, or by citing Chryssides, Hadden, Hunt, or other scholars that have refered to "Knowledge". The main attribute of "Knowledge" as described by these scholars, is not that is "to be kept secret", but that it is claimed to bring inner-peace and contentment:

Prem Pal Singh Rawat, also called Maharaji was born on December 10, 1957 in Dehradun, India[1]. He rose to fame in the 1970' upon his arrival to the West as the 13 year-old Guru Maharaj Ji, offering an experience called "Knowledge" which it is described as based on self-understanding, providing the practicioner with calmness, peace, and contentment[citing Chryssides and Hunt] through the practice of four meditative techniques. In the 1980's he transformed his initial teachings in order to appeal to a Western context, droping the title of "guru" and relinquishing associated Indian traditions and beliefs, while focusing on the possibility of people achieving such experience through his teachings. [citing Hunt again]

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

But bringing bring[ing] inner-peace and contentment isn't that notable. Every self-respecting school of meditation does claim that. Perhaps just shortening will do:

Prem Pal Singh Rawat, also called Maharaji, (born December 10, 1957 in Dehradun, India[1]. He rose to fame in the 1970' upon his arrival to the West as the 13 year-old Guru Maharaj Ji, teaching a meditation technique called "Knowledge".[2] In the 1980's he transformed his initial teachings in order to appeal to a Western context, droping the title of "guru" and relinquishing associated Indian traditions and beliefs.

Pjacobi 17:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That may work, but it misses an important aspect, that the techniques of Knowledge is not the only thing that he teaches, as these scholars have clearly described it. Notability does not necesssarily equals difference. I would argue that given the emphasis that scholars have placed in the claimed attributes of the practice of Knowledge, we ought to add some basic wording to reflect that. I think we are pretty close. What about this:

Prem Pal Singh Rawat, also called Maharaji, (born December 10, 1957 in Dehradun, India[1], rose to fame in the 1970's upon his arrival to the West as the 13 year-old Guru Maharaj Ji, offering an experience called Knowledge which it is described as based on self-understanding, providing the practicioner with calmness, peace, and contentment[citing Chryssides and Hunt] through the practice of four meditative techniques.[2] In the 1980's he transformed his initial teachings in order to appeal to a Western context, droping the title of "guru" and relinquishing associated Indian traditions and beliefs.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Kranenborg described Knowledge as simplified yoga techniques. Andries 18:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and that is decribed, alongside other scholars' descriptions, in the Techniques of Knowledge article, which we are wikilinking in the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Kranenborg's description is far more factual than that of Chryssides, so I prefer it in the summary/section zero. Andries 18:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Nitpicking: I still disagree with experience - it's sounds too pompous. And rose to fame seems to be floral style. But in the moment I can't offer s specific alternative. --Pjacobi 18:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't like "rose to fame" either, I was using Hunt's description. We can move away from "experience", although that is very much the term used by Prem Rawat as well other scholars. As for Andries' assertion of his preference, well, that is just one scholar's opinion, and we are describing it later. This is just the first sentence and should be focused on the main aspects as per WP:LEAD. What about this:

Prem Pal Singh Rawat, also called Maharaji, (born December 10, 1957 in Dehradun, India[1], became known in the 1970's upon his arrival to the West, as the 13 year-old Guru Maharaj Ji, offering Knowledge which it is described as based on self-understanding, providing the practicioner of the four meditative techniques he teaches with calmness, peace, and contentment[citing Chryssides and Hunt] In the 1980's he transformed his initial teachings in order to appeal to a Western context, droping the title of "guru" and relinquishing associated Indian traditions and beliefs.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose because Chryssides description is far too subjective especially taking into account that a more factual by Kranenborg is available. Andries 18:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

We have Chryssides, Hunt, Hadden and others referring to Knowledge in very specific terms and different from Kranenborg. You say "factual", but it is only his opinion, is it not? He clearly confused Knowledge with Surat Shabd, mantra Yoga and Radha Soami. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not think that Chryssides is specific, and no, it is not just Kranenborg's opionion. Kranenborg was writing down facts. Andries 19:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Is not only Chryssides, Andries. We have Hunt's, Hadden, and others as well. As for your assertion above, how can we know that these are "facts". Nevertheless, we should not in the first sentence of the article assert a specific scholar's opinion, in particular as these differ. That is why it may be better to use Prem Rawat's words as in the current version of the intro paragraph. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that is difficult to know what are facts and not but it is certain that what Chryssides describes are not facts but a subjective interpretation. Andries 19:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You keep brining Chryssides, but I am pointing out two other scholar's as well that use descriptions that are not in support of Kranenborg's assertions. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Peter Jacobi, what does de:Reinhart Hummel say about Knowledge? I cannot find his book at the moment. Andries 19:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I will check what de:Reinhart Hummel wrote about Knowledge. I have his book at home. Andries 19:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Just note that Hummel, as well as Kranenborg, have specific viewpoinst based on their religion. Note that Hummel is an evangelical Lutheran, and Kranenborg, a reverend. So, I would argue that we can cite them, but to be cautious about the bias from which they certainly write. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hummel described the four techiques as kriya yoga techiques. Andries 19:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You may want to add a short sentence about Hummel's viewpoint to the Techniques of Knowledge article, and/or to this article in the approriate section ("Access to the techniques"), maybe after the mention of Kranenborg's viewpoint. The full quote in German and page number would be much appreciated. You may also want to read kriya yoga, I do not see there any references to Prem Rawat. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hummel is generally considered a neutral and benevolent observer. Note that e.g. ISKCON publishes his articles and did invite him to speak on some major anniversary. --Pjacobi 18:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I only know this about Hummel: (a) he is an envagelist and a missionary, and currently the leader of the Evan­ge­lische Zentralstelle für Weltanschau­ungs­fragen ; (b) he writes that meditation is "often shown to be dangerous"; (c) He is a contributor to DialogCenter, a Christian-advocacy group agains NRMs. So, I am only asking to ne cautious with how we cite him. I am not against citing his views, and I have asked Andries if he wants to add a cite from Hummel, just that I would not use a non-neutral source in the article's lead, in particular when there are conflicting views from other scholars without a religious agenda. This applies to Kranenborg as well ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hummel is not anymore the head of the EZW, which by and large can be seen a research insitute. Hummel is definitively not a missionary. For the accusation, that he is "evangelikal" you should better give RS, this is a most disturbing POV. --Pjacobi 19:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that assessing Dutch and German language sources is nearly impossible for Jossi, but I disagree that we should cite Hummel with caution in this particular case. The book I am talking about is Indische Mission and Neue Frommigkeit that I borrowed from the uni library. As far as I know this book was written for the University of Heidelberg and it is hence not a missionary or Christian apologetic book. It can be cited as a neutral academic source. Andries 19:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, do you mean that "Dialog Center": http://www.dci.dk/en/ ? When searching for "Hummel", the following six entries come up: Five original and one translated article for their publication. I don't see surrender to aggressive prosetlyzing or the like. All sober, differentiating treatises, which would be first class references for Wikipedia. --Pjacobi 19:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hummel's article on Sathya Sai Baba is very accurate and detailed. This is in sharp contrast to Chryssides writings about SSB. Andries 19:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You keep brining up Chryssides, but I am talking not noly about him, but about about other non-religious scholars that described the experience and the techniques, such as Hunt. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

First, I would kindly suggest we keep this conversation without flaming each other. OK? I do not speak German, but I found this text:

"Hummel was born in 1930. After an education in Theology he became pastor for a congregation in Northern Germany and later a leader of a theological college in Kotapad in India. In 1979 he began teaching Religion and Missiology at the Heidelberg University, and in 1981 he became the leader of the Evan­ge­lische Zentralstelle für Weltanschau­ungs­fragen in Stuttgart. His published writings are mainly on Eastern religions, new religious movements, reincarnation and New Age."

Then I found that he is a contributor to DialogCenter, a Christian-advocacy group against NRMs. And read an article in which he asserts that "meditation is harmful". All this tells me that he may not be a neutral source. Nevertheless, I have indicated that we can cite him, of course. As for the contention about using Hummels opinion in the lead, I have yet to see how that would be incorporated, the full quote from that book, etc. I also fail to understand the reasoning behind adding a statement to the article's lead about the techniques, in particular as we have a full article on these in which all viewpoints are presented. We can find a compromise, if we are willing, and find a suitable opening sequence that we can all be happy about. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason that I want to include Hummel's and Kranenborg's statements about the Knowledge techniques is because the statements that you propose to include are vague, subjective and one-sided. Some of Hummel's articles are published on the website of the dialog center which is also the case of the articles by other cult apologists and anti-cultists. Andries 20:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

To use an analogy in the case of Hummel's writings that are published on the Dialog Center the following. Some of Bryan Wilson's articles are published on a Scientolgogy affilated website but this does of course not mean that we cannot cite him only for this reason. Andries 20:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if you read my comment above. If the contention is about what you consider to be a subjective description of the techniques, I am suggesting that we remove these and any others from the opening sentence. I offer this version to see if it would be agreable:

Prem Pal Singh Rawat, also called Maharaji, (born December 10, 1957 in Dehradun, India[1], became known in the 1970' upon his arrival to the West as the 13 year-old Guru Maharaj Ji, offering an experience which he claims brings peace and contentment through meditative techniques which he calls "Knowledge". In the 1980's he transformed his initial teachings in order to appeal to a Western context, droping the title of "guru" and relinquishing associated Indian traditions and beliefs.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure whether I agree but I think it is much better. Also, there are at least three sources that describe the Knowledge techniquea as to be kept secret i.e. Wim Haan, Kranenborg, and Hunt. Andries 20:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not a secret that people that receive Knowledge are asked not to share the techniques with others. That is well covered in the Techniques of Knowledge article which cites Wim Haan and Kranenborg already, (I should add there material from Hunt's). But I do not think that is necessary to describe this in the intro paragraph. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that subjective opinion should be avoided. I am concerned that Jossi's offering is too "western centric". PR notability stems from the fact that he became a guru at aged 8. He was notable in India for that fact and noticed in the west because he was 13 when he arrived. So, how about," Prem Pal Singh Rawat, also called Maharaji, (born December 10, 1957 in Dehradun, India[1], first came to public notice when he succeeded his father as a guru when aged eight. He travelled to the West in 1971 and was the subject of intense media exposure as the 13 year old Guru Maharaji offering an experience which he claimed brought peace and contentment through meditative techniques which he calls "Knowledge". In the 1980's he removed the Indian aspects of his initial teachings in order to appeal to a Western context, droping the title of "guru" and relinquishing associated Indian traditions and beliefs."Momento 21:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I cannot believe that this running sore is still uncauterized. The whole article should be scrubbed and rebuilt from scratch once an honest summary paragraph has been written.:

Rawat is not notable for teaching meditation. He was once notable for being the Child Guru to an New Religious Movement. Unless someone can come up with an 'authoritative' source for what "Knowledge" actually is (given that

  http://www.prem-rawat-maharaji.info/index.php?id=62   and http://mikefinch.com/mj/art/kt.htm

are from sources that are critical of Rawat and therefore apparently not 'reliable) the only notable thing about Rawat's techniques is that they are 'supposed to be secret.:

Momento's new text is plain embarrassing. Rawat clearly came to "public notice" when his family started putting him on stage to perform when he was a toddler. The fact that all sorts of claims are made about what he said at age three does not make those claims evidence of notability - the only significance is that a small child was regularly put on a stage in front of large numbers of people. This could as well be interpreted as child abuse as it is of evidence of precocious capacities or saintliness. :

The phrase "He travelled to the West" is a culturally loaded anachronism as well as being unnecessarily imprecise - what were the countries ? UK and US ? anywhere else ? "which he claimed brought peace and contentment" - where does Rawat use the word "contentment" ? - this looks like an invention by Momento, if it is not then "contentment" needs definition as does "peace".:

"meditative techniques" - presumably Momento means meditation not "meditative" :

"In the 1980's he removed the Indian aspects of his initial teachings in order to appeal to a Western context, droping the title of "guru" and relinquishing associated Indian traditions and beliefs." :

What are Rawat's "teachings" ? - nowhere on Wikipedia or anywhere else is this clarified. Further if the "teachings" changed that change needs to be made explicit - what is that was taught before 1980 - what was taught in 1990 and how did the two things differ ! If indeed Rawat did "relinquish[ing] associated Indian traditions and beliefs." these traditions and beliefs need to be made explicit - what were they ? Given the following report this assertion of relinquishing seems inaccurate - http://pwkindia.bravejournal.com/ see 31/7/06 contributor Caz.:

"Western context " as in the 1970s Rawat garnered ten times the support he got in the 1980s, was his attempt to appeal to a "Western context" ill conceived ? Such a failure is certainly notable. Again the notion of "Western" as "not Indian" is culturally loaded.:

Between them Jossi and Momento have made this corner of Wikipedia a [personal attack removed] and the whole sad story should be investigated by a team of independent editors.

Dev Bhikar 10:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

All the text that you dispute is meticulously sourced to reliable sources. If you want to contribute to this article, please support your comments with good material that we could use to improved the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Here may be some material User:Dev Bhikar/Bhikar 1 Andries 15:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I read it and I only found unsourced material, original research and some factoides there, a replica of one of the many mirrors of detractors personal websites. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

To Dev Bhikar: Please note that the current version of this article is the result of more than two year's collaboration by a myriad of editors, including detractors, current students, neutral and non-neutral editors as well and independent editors, so your idea for the article to "scrubbed and rebuilt from scratch," is inapplicable. In Wikipedia, we invite anyone to make useful contributions on the basis that collaborative editing, when performed in a framework of respect and civility, yield excellent articles. So, if you what your contributions to this and other articles to be meaningful (and save everyone from unnecessary aggravation), I invite you to study our core content policies of Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and No original research. Also, as Prem Rawat is a living person, I invite you to read the policy related to Biographies of living people. Also, I invite you to refrain from making public your opinion of editors, as these detract from a civil conversation (Read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA). In Wikipedia talk pages we discuss the article, and not its editors or the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Another study

I got a copy of David V. Barret's 2001 edition of the book The New Believers (Cassell Illustrated, ISBN 1-84403-040-7), in which there is a full section (about six pages) on Prem Rawat and related organizations, practices, beliefs, evolution of the movement, etc. I am rather surprised that we did not came across this source before, as it contains good material not available in other reliable sources that we have so far used in the article. I will be soon transcribing some excerpts of the book here, so that we can explore how to include material from this book in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Detractors copyvios

I understand that the detractors known as "ex-premies" have purchased a subscription to NewspaperARCHIVE.com, made copies of newspaper clippings from the 70's and early 80's and in violation of terms and conditions of these archives created fascimiles of these clippings and posted them in one of their websites:

You (or "your" defined by your status as an adult user and/or parent or guardian for any minor which you allow to use the Service) may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute in any way any amount of material from this site including, but not limited to, all documents, images, written material, code and software. You may download Content from this site for your personal, non-commercial use only, provided you abide by all copyright and other proprietary notices and keep any and all Content intact.[1]

Any attempt to link to such copywright violations will be mercilessly deleted from this and related articles. See WP:COPY. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion means violating ofWikipedia:Citing_sources#Intermediate_sources:_State_where_you_got_it. Andries 22:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. These additions will need to be deleted, as we cannot link to copyvios and they will fail WP:V without them. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Everybody can buy these articles, so they are perfectly fulfill WP:V. Andries 22:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Intermediate sources is something totally different. An intermediate source is when author A cites autor B and you want to quote author B. In these cases you need to specify that you found the quote in author's A works. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh really, then I misunderstood. Andries 22:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In any case, I was able to link to the fascimiles thumbnails of newspaperarchive.com, so we are OK for WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Everybody, my name is Tom and I am going to join the team working on this page, among others. I have a question re these newspaper articles. Why should any linking to sites be required? Surely it is enough to use the information and attribute it to the newspaper, date and page? Anybody uncertain of the accuracy of the information can check it against the archive. That seems quite straighforward to me. Tgubler 21:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Tom, linking is not required. They are Wikipedia:convenience links. Andries 21:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I note that Bob Mishler says PR "had tremendous problems of anxiety which he combatted with alcohol". Since Mishler is not a doctor, he is not in a position to diagnose PR's behaviour. Therefore it is a personal opinion that is libelous. Comments please.Momento 04:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Surely this statement is not meant to be taken as a medical diagnosis but as a sympathetic and euphemistic way of saying he drank alcohol to excess and that is how readers will understand it. Tgubler 21:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Where is the suggestion that he drank to excess? You have demonstrated the ambiguity of Mishler's comment, which is why it should be removed.Momento 05:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

In Soul Rush by Sophia Collier she writes that Bob Mishler told her that Maharaji got "sloshed" during Millenium 73 and that certainly sounds like excess when you consider he was only 15. As Mishler was not an apostatye at the time but the President of Divine Light Mission and Prem Rawat's right hand man ther is no reason to doubt the statement. Tgubler 21:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

From the book, we do not know when Mr. Mishler said that to Mrs. Collier. I am sure many of us got "sloshed" when we were 15... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I am interested in Tgubler's quaint notion of the appropriate age for getting "sloshed". Should it come before becoming Perfect Master or after?Momento 09:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Context

Context is not an interpretation. Leaving the cite as is, it forces the POV that this statement is an original thought, and given that it can be easily misenterpreted without the context that such statement was made by some sants and other hindu philosephers. As this statement can be highly inflamatory without proper context, it should be addressed with caution.

We have been through this before, Andries. I am not inclined to keep adding quotes from the different interviews that Maharaji gave in the 70s. We have been there and deleted all of them after reaching consensus. So, we can delete the whole thing, if you wish, or have some context provided. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, it is an unattributed comment and interpretation. There is no proof or indication that he paraphrased Brahmanand in that particular interview. We have moved quotes from Maharaji to Wikiquote. I had originally inserted a more toned down unsourced comment on Maharaji's claim to be "greater than God" when writing for the enemy, that went something like, "an expression also voiced by Brahmanand and somewhat in correspondence with the evelevated status that some Indian saints gave their gurus". As far as I know Maharaji did not explain then to his followers that this commnent and other comments that contributed to his near divine status was all part of the tradition. Andries 18:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC) improved grammar 18:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that previous focus in this article on the denials by Maharaji in media articles to be divine was one sided, because I believe there are many, many indications that he is at least partially responsible for the faith of his followers in his divinity. Andries 18:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not interested in your opinions on this subject, Andries. We are discussing the addition of a quote by Maharaji as reported by a vocal critic in a county newspaper. Not adding a context, is simply unfair and irresponsible. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

it was not from a vocal critic and it was not a quote that was out-of-context or exceptional for Rawat. I do not understand why the media article should focus on denials of divinity when they have also reported repeatedly otherwise. Scholarly summaries of Rawat's teachings are fine instead of quotes by Rawat himself. Highly selective quotes by Rawat while omitting the somewhat contradictory quotes made elsewhere are not okay. Andries 18:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC) amended for grammar 18:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the vocal critic was on the other addition you made yesterday. My mistake.. Nevertheless, the quote that you added, needs context. That is all I am asking. Adding that quote without context is unfair and unacceptable in a BLP. Note that that statement is not a unique statement and is widely used in Bhakti and Tantra yoga. See [2], [3] and used widely in India. To Western ears and without that context, this statement would sound outrageous. There are even several stories that are told, such as the one Akbar and Birbal in which the metaphor of "greater than God" is used:

"There is a simple anecdote. One day Birbal said something to Emperor Akbar. Akbar got angry and said, "Birbal, you are banished from my kingdom." Then, Birbal said, "O Lord! you are indeed greater than God Himself." Akbar could not understand what Birbal meant and said : "How can you flatter me at this moment when I am punishing you?". Birbal said : "It is not flattery, My Lord, you are indeed greater than God because you can do something which even God cannot." Birbal continued: "You can banish me from your kingdom, but God cannot banish me from His Kingdom!"

Context is indeed needed for fairness. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Added attribution and sources to provide the necessary context. There are many sources, I only selected two good ones. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

When googling the contents of the book I cannot see that this is used as a metaphor. In contrast one book described it as literal. and I also see no relationship in the book a relationship with Prem Rawat. As far as I know Prem Rawat never explained himself that it is a metaphor. Andries 19:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC) amended 20:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The cited books make no connection with Prem Rawat so they should not be used for this article. Feel free to use them for the article guru that has already some information about the subjects. Specific articles should not selectively digress on a general subject. Andries 20:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the word metaphor, with "wording", as we cannot assert that these are metaphors. These sources that you deleted are provided as context, as explained above. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved sources to Guru and added wikilink that will provide the necessary context. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Disclosure

As I have accepted a position in a related organization, I may reduce the level of my involvement in editing this and related articles from now on.

Nevertheless, I intend to continue to actively monitor these articles for vandalism, correct mistaken or out-of-date facts, provide new material attributable to reliable sources, and engage other editors in the talk pages for discussions on how to better these articles. I also intend to continue enforcing talk-page discipline and the policy of Wikipedia:Biographies of living people when needed. If I make any contributions to these articles, I will exercise extra caution by ensuring that my edits are in full compliance with Wikipedia content policies.

As there are occasional contributors who have publicly declared their intention to vandalize this article and disrupt the editing process, note that I will not hesitate in resuming my previous level of involvement in editing these articles at any time to stop such efforts. I will do the same if I perceive any type of malicious or disruptive editing behavior.

For those editors that are genuinely interested in making these articles better, I invite them to continue making useful contributions within the content policies of Wikipedia, while engaging other editors and myself in constructive talk page discussions.

A copy of this disclosure is also available at User:Jossi/Disclaimer ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Discussion about Improvements to this Article

I am afraid that after a close reading of this article I have to say that it is significantly inaccurate and is not written from an NPOV and that there is much information in it that cannot be verified. I am relying on the Wikipedia guidelines re NPOV, Biographies of Living Persons, Verifiability and Accuracy in judging the quality of this article. Rather than going straight into editing and improving it I am giving other editors an opportunity for discussion. I also understand that there are Wiki guidelines re the conflicts of interest and I am concerned that some editors here are students of Prem Rawat and are unable to maintain an NPOV on the subject of their Master.

The introduction to an article is of particular importance and this one fails significantly.

“He has, since the age of four,[2] been addressing people around the world on the subject of finding peace within and says that he is able to offer a practical way to do so” - Prem Rawat has not been addressing people “around the world” since the age of 4. He only addressed people in India before 1971. Up until the 1980's or later he was not talking about finding “peace within”, he was using different terminology completely. In 'Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji' it states he first gave satsang about “realizing God”. Up until the mid 1980's he was claiming to “reveal God”, “bring Peace to the World”, etc, etc.

“He calls this method "Knowledge" and describes it as taking "all your senses that have been going outside all your life, turn them around and put them inside to feel and to actually experience you".[3]“ I believe this should read “and in 19xx described it as “. Prem Rawat's teachings have evolved considerably over the last 40 years and these changes should be highlighted with specific periods mentioned when quoting him.

“At the age of six, he was revealed these techniques of "Knowledge"” This should be altered to read His father revealed these techniques of “”Knowledge” to Prem Rawat and his brothers in 1963 as is explained in 'Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji'

“began taking his message to people throughout the Indian subcontinent” - There is no evidence given in the reference that Prem Rawat spent any time traveling throughout the Indian subcontinent. If there is any such evidence it should be referenced. He was, after all, a schoolboy at the time.

“In 1971 he was invited to speak in London and Los Angeles and attracted substantial media attention, some of which referred to the 13-year-old as the "boy guru".[7]“

Who invited him? What sort of media attention did he attract? This should be expanded slightly to explain the invitation came from a handful of Western devotees and that the media attention was derisory and highly critical. The derisory media attention is easily referenced. I am unsure if there is any acceptable references to the status of his invitation. The evidence given in the 'Passages' video clearly shows that he did not respond to any specific invitation.

“talking about inner peace and teaching Knowledge” - He was not talking about “inner peace”, see above. He did not “teach Knowledge” whatever that means. He did not speak at “events”. He spoke at “festivals”, at public meetings, he spoke at meetings in private homes etc, etc. The use of Elan Vital jargon “events” is completely inappropriate when discussing his life in the 1970's.

“His marriage to a Westerner in 1974 precipitated a family rift” - Prem Rawat's mother was quite specific about the reasons she disinherited and disowned her youngest son. Her statements were widely reported in the Western Press and academic articles and include: her son's materialistic lifestyle, including a fondness for expensive homes and sports cars ... “He has always preached and recommended his devotees to live a life of vegetarianism, celibacy and abstaining from alcohol and all excessive forms of materialism. Now he himself is indulging and encouraging his devotees to eat meat, to get married and have sexual relations and to drink. He's not living a spiritual life, He's being a playboy.” “However, he declined to answer his mother's charges that he had started drinking alcoholic beverages, had begun eating meat instead of remaining a vegetarian, and had shown too much interest in sex.”

What evidence is there that there was a “slow dissolution of the Divine Light Mission”? - I recall the “dissolution” as being quite sudden and reasonably quick.

“promoting the same message and offering the same techniques of Knowledge.[12][12][12]” - According to The Prem Rawat Foundation, he has continued to promote a means to achieve a lifelong, individual experience of inner peace,[13] “ - Why this repetition 2 sentences apart? The article is lengthy enough as it is. In the 1970's he spoke of world peace, he spoke of realization of God, etc.

“Starting in 2001, he has been invited to address various institutions on the subject of peace,[14]” - It should be added that it is members of his organisation that has actively sought and requested these opportunities to speak at various institutions. Something like “Since 2001, Elan Vital has actively sought public forums where Prem Rawat can address various institutions on the subject of peace,”

“Rawat has attracted controversy for what his critics consider a lack of intellectual content in his teachings, leading a sumptuous lifestyle, and making what critics and religious scholars regarded as personal claims of divinity.” - This should read “regard as personal claims of divinity”. While Prem Rawat no longer makes such claims publicly his critics and religious scholars have not changed their attitudes towards his personal claims of divinity.

“His résumé discusses skills in computer graphics, computer-aided design, and development of aviation software. He is listed as co-inventor on a US Patent for a world-time watch for aeronautic applications.[15] A US citizen since 1977,[16] he reports that he supports himself and his family as a private investor, and that he has contributed to the success of several startup companies in various industries, including software.[17]” - I see no references for any of these claims. Mention of his finances should also include references to the newspaper reports of legal evidence showing Prem Rawat received millions of dollars of DLM money in the early 1970's from donations and inheritances that provided him with the money for his sumptuous lifestyle and investment funds.

Childhood in India

“When he was six years old, his father taught him the techniques of Knowledge, including young Prem among his other students” - When Prem Rawat was six years old, his father gave his four sons Knowledge. Prem Rawat is quoted in 'Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji': “"When I was six my Father gave me Knowledge with my brothers in the same room.“ This is the language used then and it is the appropriate language to use in discussing the event.

“which was unusual since it was not in accordance with Hindu tradition of primogeniture” - Primogeniture has nothing to do with Guru successorship. Hans Rawat was not the eldest son of Shri Swarupanand. Vivekananda and Brahmananda were not the sons of Sri Ramakrishna. This statement has no relevance.

“There is a witness account by Shri Hans' personal driver which refers to Shri Hans' request for Prem to succeed him.” - While I have no problem with this statement it is unsupported first person testimony and is redundant. As far as I know there is no dispute about the events of the succession and incarnation. However as Prem Rawat's personal experience of empowerment/incarnation is so dramatic and unusual it should be included. References to Prem Rawat's reminiscences 30 years later should be replaced with references to the published information available in the early 1970's.

“In October 1969 he sent a mahatma to London to begin teaching Knowledge on his behalf.“ - In October 1969 he sent Mahatma Gurucharnanand to London to begin revealing Knowledge. The terminology used was “revealing Knowledge”, or “giving Knowledge”, “teaching Knowledge” has not been used.

“According to the Dutch religious scholar and minister Reender Kranenborg, this speech called the Peace Bomb marked the start of the Maharaji's mission to the West.[29]” - As the so-called 'Peace Bomb' speech was so remarkable there should be quotes from it directly in the text or linked to it here and some discussion of it's more bombastic statements.

The 1970s

“and spoke at the first Glastonbury Festival, where he again offered people peace” - The only parts of his speech I have seen do not mention peace but only Knowledge. "Because I have got that Knowledge, I have got that Knowledge, I have got that thing and I can say you all that I can help mankind and everybody of you by giving that Knowledge." Is there a transcript or audio/video of this speech?

“and eldest brother, Satpal” - At that time his eldest brother was known as Bal Bhagwan Ji

“That year the organization held a multi-day event at Montrose, Colorado at which two thousand people attended.[citation needed]” - 'Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji' page 36 states that 6,000 people attended.

“In November 1973, DLM booked the Houston Astrodome for a three-day gathering coinciding with Shri Hans' birthday and called "Millennium '73".[31]” - Millenium 73 was an enormous watershed for DLM and requires far more text than this.

“In 1974, DLM was reporting that 60,000 individuals were practicing the techniques of Knowledge in the United Kingdom” - This is an extraordinary number of people. It is inconceivable that so many people could even have been initiated and as there was a tremendous drop-out rate in the early 70's there wouldn't have been that many “practising”. The reference is to a book called 'Soul Friend' by someone called Leech. What evidence is there that this claim has any basis in fact? United States statistics of the time are: On March 6, 1976 Associated Press reported that The Mission says it has initiated 50,000 into its ranks in this country since 1971, of whom 15,040 remain regular contributors. On Sept 22, 1976 Associated Press reported that Donations fell to $70,000 a month, although Joe Anctil the 43-year-old spokesman said 3,000 regular donors remain. And international numbers down from 6 million to 1.2 million. Presumably the other 4.8 million were following Mata Ji and Satpal.

Sophia Collier reported her views on Prem Rawat's divinity. She also reported that “(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."); “

“The marriage to a Westerner apparently precipitated a rift between Prem and his mother.” - Prem Rawat's mother was quite specific about the reasons she disinherited and disowned her youngest son. Her statements were widely reported in the Western Press and include: her son's materialistic lifestyle, including a fondness for expensive homes and sports cars ... He has always preached and recommended his devotees to live a life of vegetarianism, celibacy and abstaining from alcohol and all excessive forms of materialism. Now he himself is indulging and encouraging his devotees to eat meat, to get married and have sexual relations and to drink. He's not living a spiritual life, He's being a playboy. However, he declined to answer his mother's charges that he had started drinking alcoholic beverages, had begun eating meat instead of remaining a vegetarian, and had shown too much interest in sex. Prem Rawat then claimed his family had never accepted him as the Satguru and had never really understood what a Satguru is (Downton). Glen Whitaker in the 'Passages' video states that “Maharaji himself has taught about it, that and I knew the family, I could see what was happening, that they saw it as the family business.“

“The first posters about Rawat in the early 1970s said, “Meditation is not what you think.”” - They also said 'Guru is Greater Than God' and 'Guru Reveals God' and 'The Second Coming'

“claims which Rawat denied in several interviews given to the press and on television”. - Prem Rawat made claims in front of his devotees that differed from some of his “denials” to the media. An NPOV discussion of this situation should give examples of both of these types of statements. It should also include discussion of the difference between the public exposition of the “Knoledge” and the inner exposition. Are there transcripts of the interview by Johnny Young available? Or "The Tomorrow Show, 1973?

“An FAQ of Elan Vital claims that statements about Guru and God are routinely pronounced by people in India.[49]” - This should read “A FAQ” but does Elan Vital provide any evidence that this is correct? If it doesn't this is just an unverifiable statement and should be removed.

That is a list of my initial concerns. There is also much that could be added that would provide a more accurate, verifiable and NPOV account of Prem Rawat's tumultuous life and evolution in his exposition of “Knowledge” and teachings during the 1970's which are the most significant and eventful of his life.

Tgubler 22:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

According to Wiki guidelines this article is 10 Kilobytes too long, so I'm all for removing stuff. And therefore I support Tom's suggestion on this sentence - “He has, since the age of four,[2] been addressing people around the world on the subject of finding peace within and says that he is able to offer a practical way to do so” - Prem Rawat has not been addressing people “around the world” since the age of 4". So let's remove "around the world". Any objections?Momento 09:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I would want to change this into "He has, since the age of four,[2] been addressing people around the world among others on the subject of finding peace within and says that he is able to offer a practical way to do so” The reason why I want to omit the word within is because he was also talking about "world peace", not just about "peace within". Andries 10:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no objections in stating, as per Andries an Momento's suggestion, that: He has, since the age of four, been addressing people on the subject of peace and says that he is able to offer a practical way to do so. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have two objections to this edit. 1) "among others???" what does that mean? and 2) PR may have mentioned "world peace" in passing but his message has always been about "finding peace within", that is what he offers. That "peace" can only be found "within" is a fundemental part of PR's message. Therefore "He has, since the age of four, been addressing people on the subject of finding peace within and says that he is able to offer a practical way to do so."Momento 19:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of interest of TGubler

I have raised a concern about a possible conflict of interest of Tgubler (talk · contribs) at User talk:Tgubler.

As for your comments above, there is no need to copy entire pieces of the article, as it is difficult to follow. I will address your comments in the next few days. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I have read the Wiki guidelines on Conflict of Interest but cannot see their applicability to this article. You have been the major editor on this article and it has strayed very, very far from Wikipedia biographies of living persons policies. However as those policies are quite straightforward I am sure we will work together admirably and bring it back in line with Wikipedia policies. Tgubler 21:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The article has been edited by a myriad of editors over more than two and a half years. Yes, I have provided many of the scolartly sources (together with User:Andries and others), but it is the result of extensive collaboration. The applicability of WP:COI is clearly explained in your talk page. I would prefer to keep it there, and use this talk page to discuss the article. I will have a response to your numerous comments soon. As for your comment about "straying away" from policy, well, you will need to provide some arguments to support that assertion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Rigopoulos

Who is Rigopoulos, and which book are you citing, Andries? Once you find that you could also add the source to the Sant Mat article, if you wish, in whch the definition of Sant is presented. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

it is in the reference section. Andries 15:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The peer review requested that page numbers are added to all references. In any case, given that McLeod (an authority on the subject) already explains the term, I do not see the need for Rigopoulos'. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:54, 4

November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will add page numbers. I do not trust your ability to recognize authorities on the subject of Sant Mat because the Sant Mat article of which you are the main author contradicts what I know. The article Sant Mat labels a number of people as a group (which they were not) and writes that they were associated with each other (which they were not). Andries 15:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary to have two sources for the term "Sant." Onky one, the most authoritative source, should be used. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Look at the sources in that article, Andries. Most of the material is from the most authoritative book on the subject: The Sants: Studies in a Devotional Tradition of India, Schomer K. and McLeod W.H., ISBN 0-9612208-0-5. I would appreciate if you take this discussion to that article's talk page. I would also appreciate it if you avoid making assessments on my ability to do research. Judge me by my edits, if you must. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Even a lenghty book about the subject can be dead wrong. I believe that that the article Sant Mat that you edited is dead wrong, probably partially because it is based on flawed sources. Andries 16:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said, please move the discussion to that article's talk page. Your contributions to expand the article with other sources beyond the eleven scholarly sources I researched, is most welcome. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not have enought knowledge or sources to edit the article Sant Mat. The article Sant Mat contradicts scholarly sources that I read that do not mention the word Sant Mat. Andries 17:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Response to request for improvements

TGubler, thank you for your interest in making this article better. In Wikipedia we assume the good faith of contributors, so I take your comments in that context, and assume that your interest coincides with the interests of Wikipedia and not with some other interests. (See WP:NOT). Please find below is a list of your comments, and my response to them. It took me a while as your list of comments was pretty long. In the future, please consider making a few comments at a time. That would be better as it would allow a simpler follow up to questions and comments.

Hope that other editors can provide their views in response to your comments as well.

(Note that I have numbered my replies, so that you can respond to these by number. Please do not interject your replies between mine. Thank you). ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• (1)“He has, since the age of four,[2] been addressing people around the world on the subject of finding peace within and says that he is able to offer a practical way to do so” - Prem Rawat has not been addressing people “around the world” since the age of 4. He only addressed people in India before 1971. Up until the 1980's or later he was not talking about finding “peace within”, he was using different terminology completely. In 'Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji' it states he first gave satsang about “realizing God”. Up until the mid 1980's he was claiming to “reveal God”, “bring Peace to the World”, etc, etc.

Yes, the lead needs work. We had a long discussion a few moths ago, but no consensus was reached. As for the evolution of they way he presents his message, it could be treated throughout the article, with some caveats (see point 2 below.)

• (2)“He calls this method "Knowledge" and describes it as taking "all your senses that have been going outside all your life, turn them around and put them inside to feel and to actually experience you".[3]“ I believe this should read “and in 19xx described it as “. Prem Rawat's teachings have evolved considerably over the last 40 years and these changes should be highlighted with specific periods mentioned when quoting him.

Sure. We can attribute that quote to the specific year. Note that up to May 2006 we had in Wikipedia two articles that explored the teachings of Prem Rawat (past and current), but the content of these was deleted because there were no secondary sources available to support the material in these articles (see diff). Creating an article based solely on primary sources (such as Prem Rawat's addresses) is not acceptable as per the Wikipedia policy of no original research.

• (3)“began taking his message to people throughout the Indian subcontinent” - There is no evidence given in the reference that Prem Rawat spent any time traveling throughout the Indian subcontinent. If there is any such evidence it should be referenced. He was, after all, a schoolboy at the time.

Yes, he was a schoolboy, but was traveling to different parts of India in the weekends and in the school breaks. But I agree we need to find a source for that statement. I'll see what I can find.

• (4) Who invited him? What sort of media attention did he attract? This should be expanded slightly to explain the invitation came from a handful of Western devotees and that the media attention was derisory and highly critical. The derisory media attention is easily referenced. I am unsure if there is any acceptable references to the status of his invitation. The evidence given in the 'Passages' video clearly shows that he did not respond to any specific invitation.

That is partially correct. Some of the press coverage was more along the lines of curiosity about the "13-year-old guru". Some of the AP wires were picked up by second-rate newspapers and gossip columns, and a few reputable publications such as Times magazine published material that was also based on the "curiosity" aspect of this "boy guru" and his followers, but I would not call that "derisory". There where quite a few op-eds during these early years that may fall into the "derisory" category, but op-eds are not considered reliable sources for biographical articles. We could cite one or two representative newspaper articles in the 70's section, if needed. Note that he was also interviewed by the BBC, Tom Snyder's "The Tomorrow Show", Rolling Stone Magazine, and others, and received the keys to numerous cities during these early years. These were the wild 70s, the hippie movement, the anti-war movement, and a trend to look Westward for some answers to the issues people faced at that time. Wild times, indeed. Nevertheless, we do not write articles from an advocacy journalism perspective, and preferably we use secondary scholarly sources. As for the "invitation", we could include information about the first people from the West that came to see him, later returned to their countries, and invited him to come to London and LA, but we will need to find sources that describe them.

• (5) What evidence is there that there was a “slow dissolution of the Divine Light Mission”? - I recall the “dissolution” as being quite sudden and reasonably quick.

These words come from the sources provided. Reference #76, for example, reads "Maharaji progressively dissolved the Divine Light Mission". We can change the wording to "progressive dissolution" if that works better.

• (6) “Rawat has attracted controversy for what his critics consider a lack of intellectual content in his teachings, leading a sumptuous lifestyle, and making what critics and religious scholars regarded as personal claims of divinity.” - This should read “regard as personal claims of divinity”. While Prem Rawat no longer makes such claims publicly his critics and religious scholars have not changed their attitudes towards his personal claims of divinity.

We cannot assert that. They regarded that when they wrote these comments, and that is the way it is stated. For example, Van der Lans, one of the scholars cited, is no longer alive.

• (7) I see no references for any of these claims. Mention of his finances should also include references to the newspaper reports of legal evidence showing Prem Rawat received millions of dollars of DLM money in the early 1970's from donations and inheritances that provided him with the money for his sumptuous lifestyle and investment funds.

You need to provide reliable sources for these assertions and attribute the assertions to these that made them. I am not aware of any such "legal evidence" that you refer to.

• (8) “which was unusual since it was not in accordance with Hindu tradition of primogeniture” - Primogeniture has nothing to do with Guru successorship. Hans Rawat was not the eldest son of Shri Swarupanand. Vivekananda and Brahmananda were not the sons of Sri Ramakrishna. This statement has no relevance.

You may have a point here. I will look for sources that may have used this term, as I doubt it was introduced randomly. Clearly, there must have been an expectation that if one of Sri Maharaji's son will take on the challenge of continuing his work, that would have been the eldest brother, not the youngest. But I see your point, and unless we find sources that describe this in these terms, we should not refer to "primogeniture" in the article.

• (9) In October 1969 he sent Mahatma Gurucharnanand to London to begin revealing Knowledge. The terminology used was “revealing Knowledge”, or “giving Knowledge”, “teaching Knowledge” has not been used.

I would argue that these terms have been used interchangeably throughout the years. I see not much of an issue here. Maybe the term "reveal" was used in the 70's. We need check what the sources say, and use that term. For example, see Reference #77 (my highlight): "The meditation techniques the Maharaji teaches today are the same he learned from his father, Hansji Maharaj, who, in turn, learned them from his spiritual teacher Sarupanand." Given this, I would appreciate if you can restore the previous wording that you changed a few days ago.

• (10) As the so-called 'Peace Bomb' speech was so remarkable there should be quotes from it directly in the text or linked to it here and some discussion of it's more bombastic statements.

Quotes from the Peace Bomb address and other addresses in chronological order are available in Wikiquote. See http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Maharaji . The chronological account via Prem Rawat's words is significant as it shows the evolution of the portrayal of his message, from a child-guru speaking to Indian crowds, speaking to people upon his arrival to the West, and his well documented (as per sources provided) later efforts to present his message and teachings in a manner devoid from Indian culture connotations. That is the best we can do without engaging in original research: providing a chronological list of quotes that readers can explore in Wikiquote.

• (11) “and spoke at the first Glastonbury Festival, where he again offered people peace” - The only parts of his speech I have seen do not mention peace but only Knowledge. "Because I have got that Knowledge, I have got that Knowledge, I have got that thing and I can say you all that I can help mankind and everybody of you by giving that Knowledge." Is there a transcript or audio/video of this speech?

We will need to look for sources that mention the Glastonbury Festival, and see what these sources say. But Prem Rawat has always offered a way to find peace within, so I do not see a major issue here. We could change the wording once we find some sources, or omit the reference about what he spoke about if such sources are not forthcoming.

• (12) “and eldest brother, Satpal” - At that time his eldest brother was known as Bal Bhagwan Ji.

Yes, I think that was the name he was known at the time. We will need to find a source, though.

• (13) “In November 1973, DLM booked the Houston Astrodome for a three-day gathering coinciding with Shri Hans' birthday and called "Millennium '73".[31]” - Millenium 73 was an enormous watershed for DLM and requires far more text than this.

There is an article about the DLM, and a specific section about this festival. See: Divine_Light_Mission#Millennium_festival_in_the_Houston_Astrodome. That section may be expanded, if needed. Note that this article is what is called a "Summary article" that expands to spinoff articles, as we have a limit on the optimal size for a sigle article. See spinoff articles and Wikipedia:Summary style.

• (14) United States statistics of the time are: On March 6, 1976 Associated Press reported that The Mission says it has initiated 50,000 into its ranks in this country since 1971, of whom 15,040 remain regular contributors. On Sept 22, 1976 Associated Press reported that Donations fell to $70,000 a month, although Joe Anctil the 43-year-old spokesman said 3,000 regular donors remain. And international numbers down from 6 million to 1.2 million. Presumably the other 4.8 million were following Mata Ji and Satpal.

Provide the sources for these numbers and these can be included alongside other assessments made about number of adherents that are already present in the article. Regarding your last statement, that is just speculation, unless you can find a source that makes that assertion.

• (15) Prem Rawat's mother was quite specific about the reasons she disinherited and disowned her youngest son.

That was once included in the article. We can look in the article's history and dig one source out ( If you have a verifiable source for the quotes, please state them so that it can be used in the article.) Clearly the mother was a staunch Hindu, and must have been very unhappy by his son's disregard to tradition: marrying a white woman, not being necessarily "politically correct", his unwillingness to follow any tradition, etc.

• (16) claims which Rawat denied in several interviews given to the press and on television”. - Prem Rawat made claims in front of his devotees that differed from some of his “denials” to the media. An NPOV discussion of this situation should give examples of both of these types of statements. It should also include discussion of the difference between the public exposition of the “Knoledge” and the inner exposition. Are there transcripts of the interview by Johnny Young available? Or "The Tomorrow Show, 1973?

We had an extensive exposition on this on an early revision, and editors agreed to summarize these aspects into what you see now. You may want to explore the numerous archives and the article's history in which these aspects were discussed, and agreement for the current version reached. Note that this idea of an "inner exposition" and "outer exposition" has not been referred to in any of the scholarly books, encyclopedias, and articles that we have found. If you find any reliable sources that describe such a practice, we can surely include such description. You may want to become familiar with our verifiability policy.

• (17) “An FAQ of Elan Vital claims that statements about Guru and God are routinely pronounced by people in India.[49]” - This should read “A FAQ” but does Elan Vital provide any evidence that this is correct? If it doesn't this is just an unverifiable statement and should be removed.

The statement made by Elan Vital is verifiable. It is not our role as editors to assess if a statement is correct or incorrect. We are only describing the verifiable fact that Elan Vital makes that statement in their FAQ. Again, see WP:V for how Wikipedia describes verifiability.

• (18) “Starting in 2001, he has been invited to address various institutions on the subject of peace,[14]” - It should be added that it is members of his organisation that has actively sought and requested these opportunities to speak at various institutions. Something like “Since 2001, Elan Vital has actively sought public forums where Prem Rawat can address various institutions on the subject of peace,”

I am not aware of any reports that asserts that Elan Vital has actively sought such things. As far as I can see, these appearances have nothing to do with that organization's activities. There is a list of these appearances at http://tprf.org/media_press_room.htm. In any case, it is a common practice to have publicists that generate publicity for a public figure, but we do not have any sources that describe a specific organization as being such. We can simply state "Starting in 2001, he has addressed various institutions on the subject of peace..." and keep it at that.

• (19) There is also much that could be added that would provide a more accurate, verifiable and NPOV account of Prem Rawat's tumultuous life and evolution in his exposition of “Knowledge” and teachings during the 1970's which are the most significant and eventful of his life.

Well, that is just your opinion. In 2006 Prem Rawat spoke to approx. 3,000,000 people. His talks are weekly on TV (Canal Infinito in South America, Channel 31 in Australia, "Words of Peace" in Brazil, etc.) and his outreach efforts are far greater than all the people that he may have addressed in the whole 70's. What I mean to say, is that the focus in a biography needs to include the complete span of a person's life, not just the 70s. The fact that yellow journalism and gossip columns do no longer cover Prem Rawat, only means that they may not be interested. These outlets are only interested in controversy to sell more newspapers. No controversy, no business. Note that I am not asserting that controversy has not shadowed Prem Rawat since he was very young. It has, as it can be gathered by reading this article. This may be the consequence of him not accepting to be put in a box, despite efforts to that effect made by his early followers, his family, or the press. Of course, that is only my opinion.

• (20) As for your last statement about the article not being accurate, not verifiable, or not NPOV, this may be just a case of misleading vividness. Please note that over the last two and a half years many editors have spent considerable time and effort to contribute to this article providing numerous sources. The result is a quite meticulously annotated and sourced article, so I would appreciate if you explicitly point out what in the article is inaccurate, unverifiable and not NPOV so that it can be addressed, rather than making such wide-ranging arguments, that may be perceived as disregarding that effort.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: (17) Elan Vital FAQ: - I do not think that Elan Vital is a reliable for this article and especially not for such kind of assertions in this article. Andries 18:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

We are only stating that they say that, and that is verifiable. We are not asserting that what they say is true, just that they talk about it in their FAQ. In any case, there is plenty material that support that statement in the article guru. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I am suprized by this answer. I thought you knew the rules about reliable sources very well. Elan Vital is not a notable or a scholarly source for the subject of Hinduism and gurus. Andries 19:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC) amended 19:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is not a reliable source for Hindusim, Andries. We are not saying that. We are just stating that the FAQ of Elan Vital says that. I do not see what is problem: Elan Vital is a related organization, and their FAQ has a page on "History – when Maharaji first came to the West" in which they make that statement. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that you consider it a related organization and this is why I did not initially complain about it. But as far as I understood, Elan Vital is formally unrelated. The problem with the statement is that it is untrue and I can imagine very well that people like user:TGubler complain about it. So formally Elan Vital's website (in a matter that makes general statements about gurus and Hinduism) is not a reliable source for this article Andries 19:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

As editors we need to provide context for readers. I see no harm in doing that, and adding the verifiable fact that Elan Vital FAQ refers to this statemenet in the context of the 70's is doing just that. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The context is that Prem Rawat never gave this context. This is a retrospective context given by an apologist organiation. Andries 19:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I know that that is your opinion, Andries. But context is needed for this article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

One at a time

Point (1)

In order to avoid confusion, I suggest we go through these suggested edits, one at a time. We've started with (1) and we should finish that to everyone's satisfaction before going to (17) . I have suggested "He has, since the age of four, been addressing people on the subject of finding peace within and says that he is able to offer a practical way to do so".Momento 19:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A compromise version could be: "He has, since the age of four, been addressing people on the subject of finding peace within and says that he is able to offer a practical way to do so" ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I like that.Momento 19:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I cannot concur. Firstly there is nothing in the Wiki policies that talks about editors compromising. The question is what has Prem Rawat been talking about or "offering" to people in his public speeches since he was 4 years old. We should check the most reliable and verifiable sources to discover this and we will find that his use of the term "peace within" is a relaitively late one. I have just printed out a copy of your reply to my discussion post. I do not have extensive free time but will return to this discussion within 24 hours once I have digested your views. I do not think discussing one point at a time is adequate and during the interim period I believe the article should be marked as controversial and with it's NPOV under dispute. I understand that jossi only became a "student" of Prem Rawat in the 1980's and has no personal knowledge of Prem Rawat's teachings in his incarnation of "Guru Maharaj Ji" in the 1970's. Is this correct? Momento, are you a "student" of Prem Rawat's? If so could you give a brief outline of this association so I have some understanding of your personal knowledge of his teachings? Tgubler 22:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken or mislead, Tgubler. Read Wikipedia:Consensus to learn about how articles are edited. Wikipedia is not about describing our "personal experiences", so your point is moot. That is better left for a blog or a personal page. In Wikipedia we describe the different viewpoints published by reliable sources, and that is what we have done so far. I would appreciate that you take your time to learn how this project works. As for your suggestion to be marked NPOV, that is not acceptable. If you have any 'specific concerns besides those that you have made already, then state them. Otherwise, allow the discussion to proceed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you are mistaking 'consensus' for 'compromise'. Is English your first language? If it not, that could explain a lot. We agree entirely that Wikipedia is definitely not about our personal experiences. However our personal experiences can explain much about our biases, unconscious or otherwise and our background knowledge, shared or not. I am trying to understand your background knowledge better so that our work together can be smoother and the article can be as good as possible. There are many scholarly treatments of Prem Rawat's teaching in the 1970's, flawed though some of them are. Unfortunately as Prem Rawat disappeared from public view in the 1980's there will be a dearth of well sourced information available about him from then on. We should also keep in mind the relative unimportance of Prem Rawat in the modern world. While this doesn't mean the article should be treated lightly, students of Rawat should not expect it to treat him with undue deference. Tgubler 01:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

English has been my first language for the last 18 years, so there is no issue here. Students of Prem Rawat should not expect this article to treat him with deference, and active detractors of Prem Rawat should not expect that this article reflects their antagonism or lack of deference either. I have advised you not to bring personal aspects to this article, for reasons you are well aware of, and hoped you get the hint. Let's focus on the article. Discuss the edit, not the editor. Discuss the article, not the subject. A pressing from your side to address the personal aspects of editors involved, is not a good idea, given your circumstances. Let's put all that aside and work through the list of your comments and replies point-by-point. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The most extensive treatment that I have about Rawat's teachings is by Kranenborg, unfortunately in Dutch language. According to Kranenborg, Rawat talked about "truth", "eternal peace", the "danger of the mind", the importance of the guru i.e. Maharaji himself and his grace, surrender to the guru, and "knowledge". A theme in his speeches according to Kranenborg is also "energy". Andries 22:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There are about 40 scholarly sources that we are citing. Using one specific POV is not what NPOV is about. Kranenborg can nbe cited alongside all other scholars. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The statement that he spoke about "peace within" is sourced to nothing and nobody, so relying on Kranenborg is an improvement. Andries 05:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Request moratorium in editing article

I would also appreciate if Andries can refrain editing the article while we are engaging in discussions here. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Why? My edits were unrelated to the points discussed. Andries 19:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Your choice, Andries. I would argue that it is related. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Jossi. Four editors are discussing Tom's "improvements to the article", and working together to improve it. It is not the time for one editor to be making undiscussed edits. And particularly inserting edits that make this excessively long article even longer. I have removed Andries's edit.Momento 19:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

So that is your only reason, making this article longer? What I added was not redundant, but completely new and clearly has added value. I will re-insert it. Andries 19:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit war. What is the rush? Once we go through these comments, you can resume editing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussions about this article tend to be very, very long and enduring. Andries 19:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If you do not have the patience to discuss and build consensus on how to improve the article, you may consider refraining from participating. ≈ jossi ≈ t •Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 19:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I will discuss the points made by TGubler and you, but in the meantime I have the right to improve the article in other respects. Andries 20:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason I removed it because it was "undiscussed". Tom, Jossi and I have been polite enough to discuss edits before making them, you should do the same. Momento 19:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not have to discuss new additions first if they are sourced to a reputable source. This edit was never disputed or discussed in any of the archives. There is no such guideline or policy that I first have discuss new undisputed additions. Andries 19:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said, it is your choice. I am only asking that you refrain from making changes to the article while three editors are making efforts to reach consensus on more than 20 points raised. Your choice, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not going to fulfill this request because reaching consensus on twenty points on a controversial subject between editors who have highly divergent viewpoints may take ages or may even be impossible. Andries 22:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I am new to Wiki and have very little experience of it. How do I find out what the edits of Andries' are? I see no reason why Andries should not continue editing while our discussions continue, discussion that I hope Andries partakes of. I have put my views on the article up for discussion as I am a new eidtor and believe wholesale changes are required. Surely long term editors can go on improving the article as long as the changes are within Wiki guidelines of verifiablity from reputable sources. Tgubler 22:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[4] TGubler, You can check the history of the Prem Rawat article or you can check Andries user contributions Andries 22:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"Wolesale changes" will be implemented only if consensus is reached on these. If it takes time, so be it. Patience is required. If Andries wants to continue editing, it is his choice. I just find his timing it "peculiar". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

May I begin with simpler editing queries

Some of the points I raised and jossi responded to are quite complex and it is much easier criticisng errors than replacing them with better information. To begin with I'd like to discuss more specific queries which jossi has sensibly numbered.

(4) Firstly: AP and UP were the premiere news services on the planet. It doesn't matter that at the moment we have articles by them as printed in regionsla newspapers. This has to do with the ongoing publishing of these articles on the internet and my discovering of these and I already have recovered some articles from the Times of London and other respected individual newspapers. I have a quote from the respected doyen of Religious Dictionary authors, J. Gordon Melton, who uses the word 'ridicule' to describe media responses to Prem Rawat's arrivalin the West. There are numerous available articles from magazines that ridicule him but the best source would be the extensive research of Stephen A. Kent into the alternative press' attitude to Prem Rawat. We can hardly describe the overwhelming press response to Prem Rawat through his arrival in the West and the hardening of criticism towards him through the 1970's as "advocacy journalism". Prem Rawat's importance in the press was too little to justify that term.

(6) Interesting point. Maybe we can contact some of the living critics and religious scholars and see if they still hold those views. However as these beliefs about his personal divinity are quite astonishing and were publicised widely in Divine Light Mission media and reported widely in the press and academic sources of the time an NPOV article should just baldly state that he made claims of personal divinity and received much criticism therefore. If 20 years later Elan Vital claims otherwise this should be mentioned in passing but should not carry enough weight to alter the main text.

(7) You should study the newspaper reports of the Darby McLean case in the British Columbia Supreme Court. Evidence was given by Michael Garson and accepted by the judge who prevented any of her inheritance being given or loaned to DLM. He also stated that evidence showed that 60% of DLM's receipts were going directly to maintain Prem Rawat in luxury.

(8) Clearly there was no expectation that one of the sons would become the next Perfect Master. Prem Rawat and DLM often stated that Prem Rawat's position is one of self-existent incarnation and not of inheritance. Did Jesus Christ's son inherit his position, Buddha's, Sri Swarupanand's? Of course not. Prem Rawat has often claimed to be the unique person alive on the planet in the tradition of the Masters who is able to reveal the "Knowledge" and inspire the devotees or "students". This is not an inherited position.

(9) The source you are giving is an elanvital FAQ of 2006. I have no problem with using that terminology when discussing his present career and specifically stating the source. I am unsure that if we allow Elan Vital to speak for itself we shouldn't also be having rejoinders from critics in the text for NPOV?

(11) Yes a transcript of that speech would be interesting but without it we may have to remove that section. However when you write "But Prem Rawat has always offered a way to find peace within" this is begging the question. You may write "Prem Rawat claims that he has always offered a way to find peace within" or "Prem Rawat's followers claim that he has always offered a way to find peace within" but there would be no controversy about Prem Rawat if there was general agreement that he could do such a thing.

(12) At last something simple we will all be able to agree upon.

(13) I see. I may come back to this later. To begin with a simple link to the DLM article section about Millenium will be adequate.

(14) Of course I have the sources, there are newspaper articles quoting Joe Anctil the DLM spokesman, I will retrieve them.

(15) There are numerous newspaper (and magazine?) articles quoting her.

Unfortuantely I am not well and this is all I can contribute for the moment. Thank You Tgubler 02:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I am also coming down with something and may not be able to respond for a few days. Others can continue with the discussion. Take it easy. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I am in agreement with (8) so unless there are any objections we should remove that sentence. As for the sources you mention, when you feeel better, please provide the title of these books and page numbers so that these can be verified. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Can we (Tom,Jossi,Andries & Momento) also agree on (1) as suggested by Jossi? Momento 19:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that leaving the lead until last is a good idea as long as the article is marked Neutrality under dispute Tgubler 20:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

(16) This is probably the most controversial point that separates "students" and critics of Prem Rawats who were formerly "premies". However to begin with there must be verifiable sources. The "interview" with Johnny Young is certainly not one of them. Johhny Young who is pretty well universally liked (if not necessarily respected) in Australia is a former pop singer, MOR entertainer and currently a radio disk jockey and was in the early 1980's a follower/premie of Prem Rawat's. While I would like to read this "interview" it cannot be taken seriously as a source and should be removed. I have attempted to contact Johnny asking if he would like to comment upon Prem Rawat and his association with him but have received no reply. To the best of my knowledge, he has not commented publicly about Prem Rawat in over 20 years. There is a video called "I Have This Knowledge" which contains part of a morning TV interview with Prem Rawat in the early 1970's. Is this the Tom Snyder interview?

(17) Does the FAQ (I will download and read it shortly) talk about similar statements about Guru and God being routinely made? I have no doubt that statements about Guru and God are routinely made in India but the sort of staements that Prem Rawat and his followers made are quite extraordinary. This point should be clarified and either way a clause added that no evidence is provided by them for this claim.

(18) I am aware of an Elan Vital PDF flyer with an article by Dick Cooper(?) talking of his service which was doing this very sort of thing. And if Elan Vital or publicists not employed by Prem Rawat are not requesting and arranging these speaking engaements then how are they being made? Prem Rawat has had virtually no publicity for 25 years and when he has been written about in the mainstream media it is ordinarily quite critical. Would contacting these organisations to determine how Prem Rawat's speaking engagements were arranged be considered "original research"?

(19) And what verifiable evidence from appropriate sources are there for these statistics? Surely this is "original research" and/or unverifiable statistics from an NRM or organisation whose raison d'etre is to promote Prem Rawat. And while the numbers are lumped in as a whole without any country breakdown it appears identical to what any run of the mill Indian guru can mention after appearing at the Kumbha Mela. Associated Press, United Press, New York Times, London Times, The Australian, The Courier Mail do not write "yellow journalism" and your criticism of the media should probably be posted on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media and not here where it has no value. I'm sorry but did you say you were fluent in English? I have no idea what "put him in a box" means. Is this an un-idiomatic translation of a saying from another language? You are beginning to sound quite petulant. The majority of his family members and the overwhelming majority of his early followers no longer consider his teachings worth following but these are not the people whose views are necessarily involved in creating a balanced, well-sourced, Wikipedia article about Prem Rawat. However the reputable press and other valid sources are and your disdainful opinion of them is irrelevant. Chill out bro!

(20) I'm sorry if you have misunderstood. Surely my first, brief series of points of concern (these you have so numbered so well) are the beginnings of my reasons for considering the article not accurate, not verifiable and not NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by tGubler (talk • contribs)

Process

Before I make a proposal for process, let me say this: please do not call me 'bro' or "wiki guru" or "my yoda" as you have done. A collegial atmosphere is a good thing, but that there are some lines we do not cross. Respect, in my book, includes some elbow room, so keeping some distance will be appreciated. Also, it will be much better if if you keep to yourself assessments such as "you are beginning to sound petulant", as these are not useful and can easily escalate to personal attacks. Don't do it. Having said that, I propose that to address your 20 points, we take one at a time (does not have to be sequential, pick any one), and let's discuss. If the point is related to a specific source, please provide the name of the reference, author and page (if it is a book) or any other information that will allow other editors to check these sources.

It may seem tedious, and slow, but that is the way it works sometimes. In any case, my assessment of your points is that we can go trough them quite swiftly, and incorporate any good material that is missing, remove material about which there is consensus, etc.

I would also suggest to leave the article lead as the last point to discuss, as lead of articles are a supposed to be a concise summary of the article. Let us collaborate in improving the article, and when we are satisified with the article contents I am sure a good lead will emerge quite easily. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You said you weren't well and would need a couple of days away. Is this still correct? Good point about the lead but during this possibly quite lengthy process of reaching consensus the article should be marked as disputed neutrality Tgubler 20:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Feeling better ths morning. Thank you for asking. I see that you feel better as well. No, I do not think that it needs a disputed tag. Your comments can be addressed switfly, if editors accept the proposed process. Let's roll our sleeves and address your concerns one at the time. Which one would you suggest to start with? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

However I do believe it needs a disputed tag and it seems that must be something that does not require a consensus to be implemented. I will insert a disputed NPOV tag unless you can provide a very compelling reason why not. Unfortunately I am not much better and can not spend much time today on this article. Tgubler 21:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have asked several times to chose one of the points to start the discussion, but no answer is forthcoming. The compelling reason is that you have made a long list of points, that have been responded to in detail and you have yet to agree on a process to resolve the issues you have raised. Many of your points do not list sources, just refer vaguely to them, so editors do no have the means to verify them. A show of good faith would be to indicate that you are interested in resolving the issues raised, not to assert the need for a dispute tag. All editors here seem very keen in improving the article and address your concerns. so let's get started. The ball is in your court. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You have asked several times but within a very short time frame and I do not have the time and energy to devote to this article that you do. Please be a little more patient with me. I will not put up a dispute tag until I am able devote enough time to the article. Tgubler 23:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Take all the time you need. But being ready to edit does not mean that a tag is warranted, for the reasons provided. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to say again that this article is too long. Could we please concentrate our efforts and edits on removing inaccuracies rather than inserting more info. This article became over 90 kilobytes as a result of editors adding bits that supported their POV which usually prompted other editors to add bits that rebutted them. A recent example being this addition (in bold) - By the early 1970s, DLM was operating in South America, North America, Europe, and Australia and had established ashrams, whose members were required to take a vow of poverty, chastity, and obedience.[34][35][36] In 1972 Time magazine reported that Rawat suggested "a stringent life-style for his devotees, devoid of drugs, sex, tobacco and alcohol." [37]

The first sentence already adequately explains the ashram requirements, the second sentence adds nothing new except an error, it is misleading because the requirement was only for the ashram. Do I have to add another quote that clears up Time magazine's error or can I just delete it? The answer is I am not going to waste time rebutting additional material. Momento 19:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Momento can you explain what you consider an error in the second sentence? And what sources you have to verify it is an "error"? Tgubler 20:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Because PR didn't suggest "a stringent life-style for his devotees, devoid of drugs, sex, tobacco and alcohol". That was only for people living in the ashram.Momento 22:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This brings up an interesting point. Anyone familiar with the situation knows that PR never made "a stringent life-style for his devotees, devoid of drugs, sex, tobacco and alcohol" a condition for receiving Knowledge but that is what the Time magazine article claims. Do we as editors, inlcude material we know is false because it comes from a reliable source or do we omit stuff we know is false even though it comes from a reputable source.Momento 23:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

But on what evidence are you basing this claim of error? Whose familiarity? Is this just your personal recollection? Were you a "premie" in the 1970's? I find no record of Prem Rawat or officers of DLM informing Time magazine of any errors in the article. I don't think we should be concerned at the length of the article at this time. Just because Prem Rawat achieved only a brief notoriety and is leader of a very minor NRM doesn't mean it necessarily has to be a short article Tgubler 23:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The description of 70s & 80s Knowledge sessions on Ex-premie org websites makes no mention of abstaining from drugs, sex, tobacco and alcohol in order to receive Knowledge and every premie I have spoken to says it wasn't part of receiving Knowledge. The length of the article isn't dictated by the subject or my opinion but by Wiki's guidelines that, ideally, an article should be less than 54 kilbytes, this article is 65.Momento 02:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The optimal size of an article is unrelated to the subject. See Wikipedia:Article size ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

In Wikipedia we report what is verifiable, not what is "true." If that magazinbe made a mistake, we can only produce additional information that provides a different viewpoint. There are many sources that describe the live in ashrams as distinct from the requirements to be taught the techniques of Knowledge. For example, the "Religious Requirements and Practices of Certain Selected Groups: A Handbook for Chaplains" (1983), U. S. Department of the Army, ISBN 0-898-75607-3, reads: "PRACTICES AND BEHAVIORAL STANDARDS: There are no ethical practices in terms of rules and regulations. Members believe that involvement in satsang, service and meditation results in an inner code of conduct which guides behavior. The central practice is meditation. // DIETARY LAWS OR RESTRICTIONS: Most members are encouraged to be vegetarians, but this is a personal choice." ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Having said that, if there are scholarly sources available that contradicts a newspaper or magazine article substantially, and these scholarly sources present a wide consensus about a subject, responsible editors may chose to include the best available sources and not include obviously mistaken ones. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If all (ex-)premies agree that the 1972 Time article was wrong then I do not object if it is removed. Please note that there is a time difference of 11 years between the Time article and the book Religious Requirements and Practices of Certain Selected Groups: A Handbook for Chaplains". Practices may have changed substantially in those 11 years. Andries 21:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Responsible editors would have to balance off the "scholarly source's" accuracy compared to the consensus opinion of verifiable sources about Prem Rawat especially in the light of tertiary sources often rehashing earlier tertiary sources in a sort of mobius strip of errors.Tgubler 21:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Responsible editors use the best sources available. Scholarly sources are more reliable that AP wires, for example. As for editors "balancing" anything, that is questionable as it is dangerously close to original research that clearly specifies that Articles may not contain [...] any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position. . ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to maintain some elbow room as long as you keep your inflammatory comments re "yellow journalism" and your opinions re "putting Mr Rawat into boxes" (whatever that means) out of the discussion. This article and discussion about it should not be written from the POV and using the in-group language of a minor and controversial NRM. Tgubler 20:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry? There is no problem in exposing our opinions in arguments (such as your opinion above.) Discussions in talk pages have some leeway in the way they are conducted. Go and check other articles such as Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid, and you will see what I mean. All that is asked is that we discuss the article, not the subject, and that we discuss the edits, not the editor, and that we maintain the necessary level of civility required. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Interview in "Der Spiegel" Oct. 73

Any of you serious editors interested in a pdf-copy of Maharaji's Interview in the leading German magazine "Der Spiegel" Oct. 73? It is a very good example of how media dealt with him at that time, and I think, it is the last interview he gave to any public media for a very long time. The interviewers behaved so silly and arrogant that Maharaji (only fifteen) had to reprove them for their lack of seriosity. There was a notion afterward, that this interview triggered his reluctance with the press for decades to come. At least there is a clear statement from him, that an ascetic lifestyle was only requested from ashram-inhabitants. And, when asked who or what he is, he calls himself "a humble servant of God". Unfortunately for a scholar, from the interview you seem to learn a lot more about Der Spiegel than about Maharaji.--Rainer P. 18:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rainer, I'd love to have a copy. While my German is at the three year level I'm sure I can get it translated accurately. That notion re the Spiegel interview is probably not correct in itself. There was a very embarassing scene at Millenium '73 with angry journalists at the press conference and from that time journalists began to move from viewing him as an object of fun and in 1974 began much more serious criticism re his use of DLM finances and the Pat Halley hammer attack and then his mother disowned him and etc, etc. Do you have it scanned? Tgubler 20:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Rainer is German, and his English ain't bad, so he may want to translate it for us. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I got it from Der Spiegel online archive today as a pdf.-download. If I knew your send-adress, I am ready to mail it to you: send me an e-mail! I might even translate it myself, if only in recognition of Jossi's merits, but that might take a couple of days or even weeks, given my present workload.--Rainer P. 21:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind offer. My email address is tgubler[at]tpg.com.au Tgubler 00:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Points of Discussion

(12) I am not sure if jossi's statement that we would need a source to show that Satpal Rawat was known as Bal Bhagwan Ji back in the 1970's in the West was a joke or serious. jossi, could you confirm?

(15) Mata Ji (Rajeshwari Devi) was quite specific that her disowning of Prem Rawat was caused because "he had started drinking alcoholic beverages, had begun eating meat instead of remaining a vegetarian, and had shown too much interest in sex." quoted in the Associated Press story of April 14, 1975 By AP writer RANGASWAMY SATAKOPAN

(17) Yes we could fill the article with any amount of verifiable statements made by sources both promoting Prem Rawat in a public role he doesn't have or critical statements denigrating him. However as the article requires a NPOV we should not fill it original research containing self-serving statements unsupported by any research or data.

Tgubler 21:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

ad (12) I cannot find a relationship between Satpal and Bal Bhagwan Ji voiced in reputable sources. I can only find the name Bal Bhaqwan Ji, so that is the name we should use. Andries 21:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

ad (15) feel free to edit in. Andries 21:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

re: (15) Despite my requests to go one by one through the points, more issues are raised and the discussions are all over the place. I have no problem with continuing this but it will make for a messy discussion. As for the mother statements, there are several accounts of the rift. For example, other AP wires that showed up in local newspapers like the "Post Crescent" From Menosha, Wisconsin, May 10, 1975 describes the accussations as "strayed from the spiritual path by indulging in sex, alchohol, and eating meat instead of being a vegetarian" . Another one from UPI, that was published in Feb 7 1976 in another local newspaper, The Valley Independent says that "Rajeshwari Devi disowned her son saying he had strayed from the spiritual path .... His mother's complaint was that Guru Maharaj Ji had too many plush cars, fancy homes and other material comforts." Wires that are published on local newspapers make poor sources for an encyclopedic article. I am sure that there is material on scholarly sources that describe the rift in a more encylopedic manner. I will look for these.

I make my proposal again: Let us work point by point. Pick on point to discuss from 1 to 20, let's address the concern presented and find a way to resolve it for the article's benefit. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

And I second your proposal. And since (15) is currently being mentioned I will continue with that. I don't believe that this over long article needs to add any more words about the family split. We should be concentrating on removing inaccuracies not adding peripheral material. Momento 23:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

We are editing the inaccuracy. The article currently states the Mata Ji recounced Prem because he got married. Mata Ji was specific about why she denounced her son. This is not a peripheral issue. The "Holy Mother" denouncing the son she has acclaimed as the Satguru because he has become a playboy and not a holy man with drinking alcohol, meat-eating and too much interest in sex and a luxurious lifestyle is one of the most important and shocking times in his life if not the most. Especially as Prem then goes on to say that his mother and eldest brother did not understand or recognise his true "self-existent" power. Don't worry there is much extraneous information in the article that comes from original research that we will erase as we get to it. Tgubler 01:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

re (12). Bal Bhagwan is mentioned on page 325 of David Barret's The New Believers. As we already have that book in the references., all is needed is an inline ref using "Barret, The New Believers, pp.325. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

re (15). This is what Barret writes about the rift, and a good example of what is useful and encyclopedic (pp.325):

At about this time he [Maharaji] fell out with his mother, Mata Ji, who until then really been running the organization along with one of Maharaji's three older brothers, Bal Bhagwan Ji. [...] Press reports at the time, said that she dissaproved of Maharaji's lifestyle, which was described as luxurious.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

We had initially chosen to quote the newspaper directly instead of quoting Barrett. I think Barrett's wording is unnecessarily vague. Andries 22:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Initially chosen by whom, Andries? In any case, secondary sources are always preferred to primary sources. And in this case we have a choice between a a primary source in the form of an UPI wire posted on a county newspaper vs. a scholarly source by a respected scholar. A no brainer. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This was initially chosen by you me and the guy who who was the main author. I do not consider Barret's entry on Elan Vital a good one. Respected scholar? I am not aware of that. Scholarly source? Not really which he openly admits in his book. And UPI is a secondary source, not a primary source. Andries 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Which guy? Sorry, I do not follow. As per wires being primary sources, they are. As for your asessment of Barret's credentials, I am surprised, and of course I disagree. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, Zappaz, Gary_D, Andries, and Jossi originally preferred the newspaper report over Barrett's writings regarding the family rift. Andries 17:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought primary sources are here press releases by the DLM, speeches by Prem Rawat etc. Newspaper articles are generally not considered primary sources, I thought. Andries 23:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, some people make that mistake. See Secondary sources, my highlight: An example of a secondary source would be the biography of a historical figure which constructed a coherent narrative out of a variety of primary source documents, such as letters, diaries, newspaper accounts, and official records. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry jossi but you are making the mistake. Official Wiki policy states:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

Newspaper articles are verifiable and reliable sources. Much of the information you have in this article is based on self-published sources of Elan Vital's that are not acceptable as they are contentious and self-serving. The inclusion of newspaper article information is not something you can prevent through misdirection. You have not attempted to make this claim before. Tgubler 02:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This wikipedia FAQ descibes newspaper articles as a secondary source. Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ Following this FAQ newspaper articles would be a secondary source, while Barrett's book would be a self-admitted non-scholarly tertiary source. Andries 04:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No, Andries. WP:ATT/FAQ does not describe newspapers as secondary sources. Please re-read. And a Barret's book is not a tertiary source. I am surprised at your stance, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The FAQ says "New York Times account of a George Bush speech is a secondary source." I think newspaper articles about the rift are fall in the same class. Andries 06:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I am very familiar with Wikipedia policies, TGubler, so spare yourself the trouble. I would suggest that you take the time to learn how these policies apply. Or better, take the time and go edit other articles for a while rather than being a single purpose editor with maybe an ax to grind. Look, newspaper articles can be included, of course, but wires published in US county newspapers are not as reliable as secondary sources, and if we have good quality secondary sources, we use those instead. There are many magazine and newspaper articles used as reference in this article already, when involved editors assessed them to to be reliable and the best sources available to support s[ecific material. And sources related to the subject of the article can of course be used, when propelry attributed and not asserted as fact. If you have any specific passages that are "contentious and self-serving" as you claim, please add them to the list and we can discuss them, sure.

Now to the aspect of assuming god faith. So far you have made a lot of smoke but showed very little fire. Me and others have asked many times' to go through each point you have raised, one at the time, so that these can be addressed. But instead, you chose to create more smoke and not engage in discussions. If you are really interested in improving this article, as you have declared, then demonstrate that you are interested by engaging in discussions about the points you have raised, one at the time so that these can be resolved. So what is it? Are you interested in working with fellow editors in improving ths article, or not? The ball has been in your court since my detailed response to your questions. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The current reference to this point is in fact a newspaper article. So I am not replacing one type of source with another. However the current sentence is quoting the subject of this article making a false and self-serving statement about his mother's public reasons for disowning him. This family rift is already considerd important enough to be mentioned. I am going to correct the mention. You have removed the {{NPOV}} even though there is an obvious dispute. I am claiming that the article is in dispute and that it currently demonstrates a viewpoint of Prem Rawat that only tiny minority of people have while ignoring the mainstream views about him as presented in the media and academic articles. Tgubler 04:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe you must be referring to good faith. I am beginning to wonder about the good faith in your constant cliams that I am not going through each point even though we are going through point (15). This morning I presented my views on 3 of the topics. Your response has been to claim my newspaper source is invalid even though the current reference is to a newspaper. Unless Barrett claims to have had first hand inforamtion about Mata Ji's statement to the press, he is relying upon those very articles. In that case the articles are the most reliable source. I will restore the {{NPOV}} tag as we are in dispute about the article's NPOV. Tgubler 04:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The articles by Wim Haan, Kranenborg and Schnabel are better than Barrett's entry on Elan Vital, though Barrett's entry is of course more up to date. Andries 23:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

What do they say about the Mother's reasons for diswoning? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know you like these people. They have become quite prominent since you have plastered their work all over wikipedia :) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I second Jossi's proposal. And since (15) is currently being mentioned I will continue with that. I don't believe that this over long article needs to add any more words about the family split. We should be concentrating on removing inaccuracies not adding peripheral material. Momento 23:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Momento the family split is not a peripheral issue. You can of course remove any material that is not properly sourced (see my note above). If you insist on deletions first I will go through the 80's and later sections removing all the original research from self-published sources containing contentious and self-serving statements. Tgubler 02:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say the family split was peripheral, I said the added material was peripheral. I have removed your "NPOV" tag, just because an article doesn't represent your point of view doesn't entitle you to add a "NPOV" warning.Momento 03:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying the article isn't representing my POV. I am saying it does not represent the mainstream POV about Prem Rawat as shown in the media attention he has received and the books and magazine articles and academic articles in which he is mentioned.Tgubler 04:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This encyclopedia isn't developed according to what the "mainstream" thinks. And it certainly isn't based on what you think the "mainstream" thinks. Otherwise it wouldn't be an encyclopedia.Momento 06:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies Momento. I used the term "mainstream" as a short-hand term for the NPOV opinion about Prem Rawat as expressed in the reliable and verifiable sources accepted by Wikipedia for it's encyclopedia articles. I will attempt to ensure you can understand me completely in the future.Tgubler 21:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"Mainstream" has nothing to do with "NPOV". IN fact, they are very often the opposite.Momento 20:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This for the nthtime, TGubler: Are you or are you not interested in moving forward in discussin geach item that you have raised?. It seems to me that you are more interested in polemics and wikilawyering than in improving thisarticle. NPOV tags are not weapons. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @03:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is the 4th or 5th time you have made this claim in the last 24 hours. Tgubler 04:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Please make judicious use of edit summaries. Let's not escalate anything OK? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to escalate anything. I believe you are the one using inflammatory language and bullying and hectoring tone. I have discovered a range of new source material in the respected mainstream press and you seem to be trying to prevent any of these being used. My apologies if I misunderstand you. Tgubler 04:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You have "discovered" nothing, TGubler. Accessing newspaper archives give anyone access to a ton of local/county newspapers, so what? Your intention is obviously to escalate, by using words like "bulliying' so that you can slap an NPOV tag. Well, I am not going to give you the benefit of that. If you consider a civil discussion to be "bullying" you are on for a rough ride.

Back to the discussion: Are we discussing now point 15? OK. Here is a summary:

1. You say the the article needs to represent "mainstream views", but you insist in using wires picked by small-town newapapers rather than using secondary sources, even when these are available;
2. I have provided two additional sources of non-mainstream newspapers that describe Mataji's claims. I have a few more, if you want, all published in non-mainstream media;
3. I have also provided a reliable source, a book by Davit Barret in which this is addressed ''in an encyclopedic manner;
4. I have offered to research additional scholarly sources that may have described the family rift, and I intend to follow up on that by going to the local University library and doing some research;
5. Andries referrred to three Dutch authors, which he believes are superior sources, so I have aked him to check if there is any material there about the familiy rift. He has not answered yet, but let us give him some time;
6. The discussion about point (15) then, needs to be focused on what source we should use. A primary source, published on the "Post Crescent" From Menosha, Wisconsin, or David Barret's The New Believers .?

While I am at this, maybe one of you want to add the reference I provided abour Bal Bhagwan (point 12); and also, please do not interject your comments between other editor's comments.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Newspaper articles are secondary sources acc. to Wikipedia FAQ. User:Andries 06:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If you refer to WP:ATT/FAQ, that is still a proposed guideline, and in not completed. I have asked for clarification on that obvious mistake on the FAQ talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

As it states in the Biography of Living Persons policy:

Public figures

In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is it notable, verifiable and important to the article? If not, leave it out.

Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source.

You will note that the example given is of the NY Times article and so obviously the use of newspaper articles in this article about a much less significant public figure is valid. The individual newspaper from which we have a scan of the Associated Press or United Press wire service story is immaterial. However to show my good faith, as this is my first edit, I will use the London Times and the Washington Post and the book Cults by Marc Galanter and an academic article by Thomas Pilarzyk as my sources. I await your agreement to this and will return tomorrow morning at latest to do the edit. Tgubler 21:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I assume that you are talking about point (15), If so, I would suggest you provide the edit in talk page, so that it can be discussed before adding it, as requested in your talk page and as agreed in this discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

We are already referring to Pylarzyc in the DLM article. Are you referring to the same article, or a diferent one? See Divine_Light_Mission#_ref-12 ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Also note, that we are already using a Washington Post article as a source in the article, see references #98. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

In the examples given both people are "significant public figures", the difference is in nature and circumstances of the "notable" incident. In the first example, John Doe the "significant public figure" has a messy divorce and even though it is "notable and verifiable" it is not important enough to warrant inclusion in the article, even though the divorce would be a matter of public knowledge and he is a "significant public figure". The second example involves another "significant public figure", but the incident is "notable and important" to the biography because it embroiled the subject in a "public scandal". PR's split from his family was not a "public scandal" and only warrants a mention in this article because it precipitated his independence. It does not warrant any additional material.Momento 00:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The family split was not a public scandal? This seems so implausible to me that I have to laugh, but of course, I may be totally wrong, so Momento please explain. Andries 17:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The word "public" means "ordinary people in general" and "scandal" means "an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage" . PR's split from his family did not cause "general public outrage". It was, at worst, "a messy divorce" and therefore should be treated as the first example, that is, not included. The split is only relevant as it relates to the changes it caused. Gossip about who said what is irrelevant and should not be included. I have removed your undiscussed edit. Please stop imposing you POV on this article.Momento 20:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

People Magazine as a source? (point 15)

You many not be aware of this Andries, but People magazine is a gossip weekly tabloid (see this week's cover [5]). As such, I am sure you would agree that it is not a reliable source for a biographical article. Note that the mother probably said such things, but if we want to quote her, we need to find a reliable source, or alternatively find what she exactly said. For example, there is a AP wire from April 2nd 1975 in which it is stated that she provided a signed statement to the press in which she is quoted as saying "under instigation of certain bad elements in the United States Divine Light Mission, [my son] has continuosly disrespected my will by adopting a despicable non-spiritual way of life." and that " his followers in America are spoiling him.". I would prefer a good quality secondary source, but if there are no such sources, we would be better quoting the mother directly rather than using the gossip style of a tabloid. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You are probably right about People magazine, though it was accepted as source some time ago by all involved editors incl. you. Andries 19:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. about two years ago when you and I were still newbies. Please revert the edit. Let's see what other editors say about using the AP wire in which she is quoted verbatim. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added some material about the family rift from the newspaper the Age that had been selectively used as a source. Andries 19:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Andries, I have just provide you with a direct source for what she said in a signed statement. The whole thing about "playboy" was not said by the mother. Please revert, and as agreed by other involved editors, let's discuss and reach agreement on what source to use for this. Please do not act unilateraly. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Just before I added in the People magazine (which I then removed) the article, described from a newspaper article in the Age Maharaji's response to his mother's accusations. My edit of adding the mother's accusations from the same article to which Maharaji responded certainly was an improvement. Andries 19:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but we did not have the benefit of the research that I just provided. If we have a direct quote from the mother, why not to use it, as it dispells it quite clearly? As far as I can see, the use of the word "playboy" is attributed to a follower that sided with the mother. Do you have access to The Age source? Is it The Age magazine from Australia? In any case, given that editors actively involved in discussions have agreed to discuss point by point and agree on best ways to improve the article, I find your unilateral intervention to be puzzling. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

So now the secondary source (article in the Age) is better than the primary source, according to your definitions of the terms. You may be right. Anyway the UPI newswire copied in a local newspaper April 2nd 1975 newswire states

"Earlier this month, the guru's mother issued a statement in New Delhi saying she had disowned her son because of his pursuit of "a despicable, nonspiritual way of life."

Sources close to Rajeshwari Devi said she was upset because of her son's materialistic lifestyle, including a fondness for expensive homes and sports cars, and because of his marriage last year to his secretary."

Andries 20:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that we are trying to find out what the mother said. We have that now, and we can use it. In this case, that is better than the gossipy style used in People Magazine. As for the "The Age" source, I do not have a copy of that, and I do not know in which part of the newapaper it was printed (gossip column, op-ed, what?) so we cannot be certain. You must have a copy of it, as you were the editor that added it, right? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not object to replacing the information sourced to the Age with the info from the UPI newswire. I oppose to reverts, like Momento gave justified only by an allegedly wrong editing procedure. Reverts should be given on the merit of the edit i.e. the only question when giving a revert or an edit is whether it makes the article better. Andries 20:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

We are all interested in making the article better, Andries, and we have agreed to discuss the edits and reach consensus. I would appreciate it if you do that. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Reaching consensus can take ages and lack of concensus should not be used as the only reason to revert an edit that clearly makes the article better. Andries 20:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Andries should NOT be making edits without first discussing them here. His edits are disruptive, provocative and often need to be redone. I have reverted.Momento 20:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Momento, should explain why my edits make the article worse before reverting them. Andries 20:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't you understand the reason why each article has a "Tallk" page? It's so editors can discuss edits before making them.Momento 20:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Contributors are not required to discuss new additions to the article that make it better and I am not going to do that. You should explain why your revert makes the article better. It now quotes very selectively from an article from the Age. It quotes Maharaji while replying to accusations from his mother, but not quoting the accusation mentioned in the same article. And you dare to call me a POV pusher? You are at least a hundred times worse than I. Andries 20:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point Andries. The point is that editors working together on an article should discuss edits before making them. When one editor decides to make edits without discussion, it means that that editor is inserting their POV rather than reaching consesus on a NPOV. And that is what you continue to do.Momento 20:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Hey! Cool it please. No need to escalate, If you feel attacked, do not attack back, otherwise this will turn nasty very quickly. Let's focus on the p[roposal and move on. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Read this before you start adding stuff to the "family split" section and you'll understand why your edits are inappropriate - The word "public" means "ordinary people in general" and "scandal" means "an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage" . PR's split from his family did not cause "general public outrage". It was, at worst, "a messy divorce" and therefore should be treated as the first example, that is, not included. The split is only relevant as it relates to the changes it caused. Gossip about who said what is irrelevant and should not be included. I have removed your undiscussed edit. Please stop imposing you POV on this article.Momento 20:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Momento, please explain why you support quoting the article in the Age very, very selectively. Andries 20:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I support discussing edits with fellow editors before editing.Momento 20:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Lack of concensus is not a valid reason to give a revert when that makes the article worse. You should explain why my addition made the article worse and why your revert made it better. My edit was source to an article that was already very selectively used in the article.

Andries 20:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Why would you listen to my argument about your edit, when you don't listen to anyone before making them?Momento 20:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Momemnto, I do not understand. The important question that you should answer is what was wrong with my latest edit, from the perspective of improving the article. Andries 20:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Point 15 proposal

We had an agreement, Andries, and you decided to act before seeking consensus. In any case, this is the proposal:

• We use the AP wire in which the mother is quoted verbatim, and we quote that;
• we use the "The Age" article in which the 16-year-old Prem Rawat is quoted verbatim giving a response (that is, if Andries can verify "The Age" source)

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If we continue adding material to this article it will once again blow out to 90 kilobytes. We should focus our editing on removing and simplifying this article not adding. I would rather remove "Rawat later commented to the press on the family rift, saying "They live in India and I think [my mother] was upset that I married a foreigner" from the article than add his mother's words.Momento 20:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I am still unhappy about using a local newspaper as a source. The Rouston Dailoy Leader is a small newspaper covering Louisiana Tech University and Lincoln Parish (pop 42,000). In this instance I would rather use the New Delhi AP newsire. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not have it. Andries 21:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I do:

New Delhi, AP April 2, 1975 "Shri Mata Ji, or holy mother , said in a signed statement Tuesday that her son "under instigation of certain bad elements in the United States Divine LightMission, has continuosly disrespected my will by adopting adespicable non-spiritual way of life" and that "his followers inAmerica are spoiling him."

I am going to the University library to check for a secondary scholarly source that discussed the mother's statements. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the article by Myron L. Belkind, Long Beach, California ,April. 2, 1975 INDEPENDENT (AM) PRESS-TELEGRAM (PM) "'Playboy, not holy man' Guru's mother rejects him as religion chief" ?Andries 21:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No. I mean the AP newswire from New Delhi, as stated. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That article, also, is from a small local newspaper in Long Beach. I would prefer to stick with the AP wire itself. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Reender Kranenborg mentions in his 1982 book page 53 that the stated reasons for the rift were: the marriage, the life style of the young guru who would eat meat, drink alcohol, visit night clubs and the marriage of one of his brothers with a German girl for which Maharaj ji had given his consent. Andries 21:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

We know of Kranenborg bias already. I would look for more neutral sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

So here you have a scholarly secondary source that you requested/demanded that you immediately dismiss as biased. Andries 22:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It is obviously biased, Andries. Your favorite scholar made a fau de pas here. A 16-year-old, could not have gained access to a night club (you have to be 21 and show an ID to gain access to a night club in the US). Obviously he was parroting reporting gossip columns or repeating statements made by those that were associated with the mother. In any case, I just found out that the libraries are closed today due to Veteran's day. I will go next week when I find some time. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What an awful edit - The marriage to a Westerner apparently precipitated a rift between Prem and his mother, who said in April 1975 that she disowned him because of what she called his pursuit of a "despicable, nonspiritual way of life." [54] Rawat took control of the Western DLM away from them, and his mother disowned him and returned to India with two of his brothers. I'm not going to allow Andries to continue to insert unnecessary and poorly constructed edits into this article. Reverted.Momento 03:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Momento, that may have been me, when I merged the two sentences. I will try to correct. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I corrected it. I removed the word "disowned" because she did not use that word in the signed statement. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It was Andries.Momento 07:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to stay as close to the source as possible, because I do not want you to accuse me again of deceptive misparaphrasing to push my POV. You can correct minor grammatical errors caused by this yourself. Andries 08:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to correct your grammar. It is obvious you are not interested in improving this article, you are only interested in inserting whatever suits your POV withoout any concern for whether it fits, is appropriate or makes sense. You can write what you like on the anti-Prem Rawat forum, don't do it here.Momento 19:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)