Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Discussion

Thanks for the review about primary sources, Vassyana. I'm aware of the Wikipedia policy concerning them as well as how to use primary sources in the real world. Btw, the great quote I "dropped into the article" concerning Rawat's family kissing his feet is not only from a secondary source, it also happens to be true. The reason I placed it into the article is to balance off the false impression that Momento and others are trying to give in this article of Rawat's denial of his own divinity. For instance, his own mother and brothers kissed his feet and talked about his divinity from early on. Best wishes. Sylviecyn 15:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

In India kIssing or touching someone's feet is not a sign that they are divine but a common sign of respect. Even in the west it is not seen as a sign of divinity, the Pope symbolically washes and kisses the feet of poor people in Holy Week. Including a common Indian custom without context is simply a device to present Rawat as an extremist. As Eugene Taylor, PhD, is Lecturer on Psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School, said "Some of our problems with gurus are our own: we don't understand the nature of the relationship we're importing, and we respond to it inappropriately at times....the idea of kissing a guru's feet--in India this is common, but in America it gives us a completely different impression". If anyone wants to put an argument about Rawat's divinity or lack of, find a scholar's quote about it; don't play on people's ignorance to push a POV.Momento 20:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It really isn't my point of view, Momento. It's Maharaji's point of view.

Question: "Maharaj Ji, what is devotion?" Answer (Prem Rawat) Devotion is the flow of love from a devotee to his Lord, and darshan is seeing the Lord's physical form." Light Reading" Vol.1 No.1 Spring 1978

So while it's true that touching feet may be a cultural practice in some countries, it's not quite the same thing as a darshan line, or Rawat's mother/brothers and later his wife, doing pranam on stage. Indeed, in Prem Rawat's religion, organized darshan lines where premies line up to kiss his feet or bow down to Maharaji, have always taken place. I've never heard of Maharaji reciprocating by kissing someone else's feet such as his mother's, bothers' or wife's feet, have you? Darshan lines are organized by him so that premies can pass by Rawat and kiss his feet and that practice has occurred in western countries, like the U.S., Europe, Australia, UK, etc. Frankly, when I was a practicing premie, I never tried to hide that I kissed his feet, nor was I ashamed of it, as current students seem to be. Moreover, I wish you'd stop accusing me of POV pushing as if you don't have one and are a completely neutral human! So, folks, guess who's doing the POV spinning around here. I'm just interested in the facts and the truth. Sylviecyn 21:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank God you're here. Cynthia just dropped in a great quote about "kissing feet" (yuk :-( ) from a terrific 1975 Time magazine article called "Junior Guru" and before I knew it I added five more, including a great one about the young married couple not letting the mother in law into "the mansion".Then I had a flash of conscience or consciousness ( not sure which ) and I thought it might all be very juvenile so I deleted all the changes until we discussed it.Momento 11:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't being "juvenile" Momento. I believe writing good prose includes a combination of quotes from a source (in this case the Time article) as well as well-written prose. I also don't appreciate your taunt "Stop me!" in your edit comments. I don't see how you and Jossi can complain about Pat and myself not making article edits and contributions, when you are so quick to remove or change them. Btw, this is nothing new, Vassyana. Jossi has changed or removed every single edit I've ever made on this Prem Rawat series of articles, and usually within one hour of my making them, as Momento did today. This isn't fair, it's a big problem on this particular article, and doesn't add to the atmosphere of cooperation and "lightening up." Sylviecyn 11:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Corrected Cynthia's chronologically incorrect inclusion of family's attitudes to Rawat, improved over all chronology and added more material about family's attitude to Rawat.Momento 03:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

All material that is added to articles can be mercilessly edited, as written below the edit box. If I deleted anything and it was not re-added, then so be it. Also note that since my disclosure back in October last year I have hardly edited this article. Interestingly it seems that all you do here is to try to polarize. Stop making disparaging comments about other editors, stop badmouthing this project, and then maybe,j ust maybe, we can accept your interventions here in good faith. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to polarize or doing anything of the sort. That's your perspective. Furthermore, you're the major reason nobody but premies are willing to work on this article. Why? Because you've been successful at being so difficult to work with and running people off, that no one is willint to work with you anymore. And I beg to differ. You make edits on the talk pages here every single day, and the effect of that is intimidation. And there is a pattern of premies changing my edits beyond the "merciless" statement that I'm well aware of -- that's not what I'm talking about. Two different things, Jossi and you know it. So don't go thinking you're some good-will diplomat around here, fostering cooperation around this website, and definitely not on this article, becasue it couldn't be further from the truth. Sylviecyn 15:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The good thing, Syviecyn, is that in Wikipedia, every word with write is kept forever. Let these word speak for themselves shall we? Anyone can look into our contribs list, everything is there for all to see. Enough said. Now, back to working to improve this article, if we could. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! My permanent record! I haven't heard that since grammar school. I know that what I write is kept in the archives. Are you trying to intimidate me again? I'm sure you are, as your NRM has been doing for years, keeping a big fat file on me. It doesn't worry me one bit. But, getting back to the article, the really good thing about public people like Prem Rawat is that so much of what he has said is still available in print and on video on the internet and in libraries -- and not vaulted away in the Visions International archives (an Elan Vital corporation) where no one can use them. Sylviecyn 22:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Before we start adding to this article, could Vassanya have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal and see if the slimmed down version is closer to GA than this article.Momento 19:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Seconded! Vassanya, are you there? Rumiton 13:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's good that Vassanya could review the draft, but part of making a good article is making it stable, so don't you think it's a bit premature to ask for pre-approval?  :-) Best wishes Sylviecyn 21:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Vassayana, I want to be absolutely clear about your proposed guidelines. (I think I am clear about all the other points re 'avoid' etc). Am I correct that you mean that Primary sources from the subject, or the subject's organizations must be easily available from at least one of the following but not necessarily two?:
1. An official site
2. An academic site
3. Public libraries
I ask you to confirm this because most DLM publications are more or less, for our purposes only available from public libraries.
Also, Jossi is questioning the 'ease' of availability (since some hunting is involved in libraries). I personally think that to argue against using 'rare' books is nit-picking too far. In fact my scholarly friend goes as far as to say that this is nonsense. I would like to share some comments from a conversation today with him. He is a PHD Doctor, author and scholar who himself has contributed to the voluminous Encyclopedia of Religions (Gale, Thompson, Macmillan 2005). Obviously his comments are not entirely applicable to Wikipedia since not only scholars edit here, but I think it's worth reminding ourselves that :
1) All proper academic work is almost by definition, corroborated from Primary Sources. Secondary sources are considered more unreliable as they are derivative.
2) The rarity of the primary source is irrelevant.
3) Secondary sources are just as prone to abuse as Primary Sources (as we can see here from the fact that Momento excluded (accidently or otherwise) important qualifying parts of a quotation from a secondary source (Downton) (see discussion above) thereby informing only that Prem Rawat closed ashrams in 1976 but not that he re-opened them in 1977 with increased emphasis on devotion to him, as Downton indeed went on to describe. PatW 14:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, one of the three would satisfy the criteria.

Offering an opinion, I believe rare books could potentially be excluded from sources used on Wikipedia. Since information must be verifiable, a reference that is only available for purchase, only available from select (physical) archives or not generally available in libraries is a bit dodgy. I feel that if a reference is not generally available without purchasing the text or engaging in serious travel, it should not be used. Otherwise, how can the material be reasonably verified by other editors? Of course, that's just my opinion. You are free to take it with a few grains of salt.

On the source sobservations, I would simply point out that building a tertiary source is quite differant than creating a secondary source. Be well!! Vassyana 21:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I take your points as to other rare material that falls into those categories you mention. But I'm focussing specifically on this DLM material which I've attempted to proveis available in libraries and for normal fees. I mijght add that to get one's hands on most of the reference books used here one probably has to pay for the book or a library fee.PatW 21:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Pat. I left a note on your talk page about getting together for a private chat. Do you have an e-mail address I could get to you on? Rumiton 14:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Hi, I've mailed you my email address. Hope you got it.PatW 00:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Pat. please read WP:ATT#Reliable sources and WP:ATTFAQ where the definitions of primary sources, secondary sources and their use is clearly explained. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I would appreciate that you do not remind me to read these pages ever again. I have now read them entirely thank you. If you want to quote from these pages to make a specific point then do so, but kindly refrain from patronisingly telling me to re-read these pages for no apparent reason.PatW 20:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if that is your impression as it is certainly not my intention to be patronizing. But in reading your points above, seems that if you have not read (or understood) what these pages say about primary and secondary sources. This is what these pages say:

• Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible.
• Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.
• What kinds of sources are generally regarded as reliable?: Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand: Books and journals published by universities and known publishing houses; Mainstream newspapers and magazines published by notable media outlets; Books written by widely published authors; Mainstream websites published and maintained by notable media outlets;
• Another aspect is related to the use of self-published sources, that basically says that: Material from self-published sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as: it is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it; the article is not based primarily on such sources.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Be more specific. What exactly have I written that is contrary to this? I explained that the policy for 'normal' encyclopaedias (ie proper academic work) can differ from Wikipedia, and I thought it worth remembering that (for one example) rarity of a source is not an issue. I'm trying to stress that material that may require some hunting down in libraries does not fail to fulfil the Wikipedia requirement of being 'easily available'. It would seem so far that at least Vassayana agrees.PatW 21:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You said: All proper academic work is almost by definition, corroborated from Primary Sources. Secondary sources are considered more unreliable as they are derivative. In Wikipedia, the opposite concept is used. We do not rely on primary sources, we rely on the synthesis of these primary sources as available in secondary sources.. You also said: The rarity of the primary source is irrelevant. . In Wikipedia and as reported in recent ArbCom cases, material that is very rare and that is not available in public libraries, and most specifically primary sources, is not to be used. You also said: Secondary sources are just as prone to abuse as Primary Sources . That may be the case, but nevertheless, that is the Wikipedia way: we report mainly what secondary, published sources say about a subject, and attribute these opinions to those that hold them rather than asserting these opinions as fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Having said all of that, I refer you to my earlier response: Bring the material you want to use, and the source from that material and we can discuss the appropriateness of that material in the context of the edit you propose, exactly as we have doen with all other material. These "in principle" conversations are interesting, but are not really useful to move us forward. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, Vassayana took the trouble to attempt to set out some fair guidelines to help us come to some agreed principles. He also invited further thoughts (see above).Assuming he was inviting thoughts vaguely relating to what he'd said, I've essentially expressed my agreement -in the spirit of trying to understand the principles involved in deciding what we can use. ie. DLM material from libraries. You are chastising me for trying to arrive at a general consensus of principles. I beg to differ with you. I think that when these principles are agreed then is the time to go get the material. Just because you think you 'know-it-all' already doesn't mean that others do or that their discussions about the principles are not helping them to move the article forward. So far I am the only one who has actually expressly agreed to what Vassayana proposed as far as I can see.PatW 21:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please

I'd like to ask everyone to stop with the back and forth about sources. It is not serving any productive end. Focus on building the article. Moving forward, does anyone object to the primary source standards I proposed above? Does everyone agree they are fair and provide good guidelines for the use of those sources? If the editors agree on the proposed standards, let's note that and then address specific references as they come up. I would also suggest that primary sources be proposed on the talk page first, with some explanation of how they fit the standard, if it is accepted. Vassyana 22:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. As with all material that has been brought to this article, whatever material Pat wants to bring, it will be evaluated in the content of the proposed edit. There has never been an a priori acceptance of material on the basis of specific principles. We always discuss them in talk. So, his persistence in trying to get an agreement on material that he has yet not produced, to support an edit that he has not yet made, is not going to do it, IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As they say: "Show me the money"... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

For heavens sake Jossi! I am trying to get agreement on the PRINCIPLE of using primary source material from libraries, I NEVER disputed that we examine each case here. Now, as I once said to a palmist "Will you let go" ? :-) PatW 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to shout, Pat. There is no need to get such an agreement, as policies and guidelines are very clear on the subject. So, bring your source, bring the edit you want to make and it can be discussed as we have done with any other material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

In short: Nobody is stopping you from producing a source and suggesting an edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. However Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible.Momento 09:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Vassanya, could you please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal and give us your opinion.Momento 09:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

First round of comments provided. Vassyana 23:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's now nearly threee weeks since I responded to the GA advice and greatly reduced most sections of this article. Despite several requests for help on the proposed changes at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal, the main effort seems to be on determing "how to" or actually adding more material to this already bloated article. We have been advised that "The article needs to be edited mercilessly to produce more consise writing". I would like editors interested in getting this article to GA status to go to the proposal page and remove any unnecessary or POV material ASAP.Momento 22:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I just had another look and changed a few small things. I think there is an issue with NPOV in the section around "behaving like a child" but it is too late right now. See you tomorrow. Rumiton 15:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Its from J. Gordon Melton Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America (New York/London: Garland, 1986; revised edition, Garland, pages 141-145. Copyright 1986.. I think it shows the level of criticism and also that Rawat was a teenager during this time.Momento 20:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Just did a word count. This article, up to but not including "Techniques", is about 3400, the proposed bio uses 1700 to cover the same material.Momento 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

1699. I just took out "lotus." Don't think most people would know what a "lotus foot" is, I'm not sure myself. Also probably need to explain terms like Mahatma. Manyana. Rumiton 15:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a children's Encyclopaedias Ruminton. Neither was Time magazine apparently worried that their readership didn't know what a lotus meant. Time magazine also understood that it is such terms of phrase that make an article intriguing. You don't want that? As you know this was very much the language of the time. Do you really not know what was meant by 'lotus feet'? We were told often enough. I find that hard to believe. PatW 19:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, Pat. Also, it's not proper prose writing to alter a quote from a magazine article, especially one as prominant as Time Magazine. To resolve the dispute, I suggest reverting to my version which includes the actual quote from the article. It's important to trust the readers' ability to understand what's writtten, and no one can predict what anyone's interpretation might be of "lotus feet." It's not confusing. Sylviecyn

PATW's EDITS TO PROPOSED ARTICLE

I've had a go at editing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal
I've changed
'he sent one of his closest students, known as mahatmas,'
to:
'he sent one of his closest students, known as, a mahatma, to London'.
I've added ' Rawat denied the claim when asked, but accepted the veneration of followers who believed he was a divine incarnation. '

This may or may not be the best way to balance the general impression given that it was entirely due to the teachings of others that he was perceived as divine. PR allowed people to treat him and address him as 'Lord', and called God 'Maharaj Ji' in his speeches (which happened to be his own generally used name and title as well.) We can easily show that at the very least he had some reponsibility in followers perception of him as a divine incarnation. For example he would cite prayers to 'Maharaji' in his speeches. We can find some examples of this if this is disputed.

Changed:
'The guru was more important than the organisation, devotion was encouraged and many people returned to Ashram life.'
to:
'The guru was more important than the organisation, he encouraged devotion and many people returned to Ashram life.'

Others were simply responding to the change of emphasis in his teachings.

Changed:
'Although Rawat teaches no beliefs or ethical practices, the fundamental experience of inner peace is to be found through satsang, service and meditation, the sum of which is an experience Prem Rawat calls "Knowledge." Rawat claims that "Knowledge is a way..'
to:
'Although Rawat now teaches no beliefs or ethical practices, the fundamental experience of inner peace is claimed to be found through satsang, service and meditation, the sum of which is an experience Prem Rawat calls "Knowledge." Rawat asserts that "Knowledge is a way.."

He once did teach ethical practices as per ashram lifestyle. "claimed' inserted for NPOVPatW 21:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of wanting to reduce the word count I would like to attempt some precis of the proposed article. Re-reading it I think that there is much that could be said more briefly without changing any points or emphasis. I would like to do some more grammatical snipping.PatW 21:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed your addition "but accepted the veneration of followers who believed he was a divine incarnation" as not all followers believed he was a divine incarnation as Colliers following quotes indicates. Following your addition of "he" to "he encouraged devotion and many people returned to Ashram life", I have changed the style in the previous paragraph to match so "Rawat encouraged people to leave the ashram, discard Indian terminology and customs and reduced staff at DLM HQ from 250 to 80".Momento 22:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, it was entirely due to the teachings of others that he was perceived as divine. Rawat didn't start this thing, he stepped into a pre-exisitng position vacated by his father. The idea of the Guru being divine and the role of the devotee existed for hundreds of years before Rawat was born.Momento 22:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That's absolutely untrue, Momento. I can provide plenty (hundreds) of Prem Rawat quotes that contradict your theory that it was only "teachings of others" that taught that Guru Maharaj Ji is divine, God, just like Jesus, Buddha, Mohamad, etc. One simple example of how wrong you are is Maharaji's own ashram manual (which he wrote) which dictates that ashram premies sing "Arti" twice per day. Another is that "Arti" was sung to Maharaji directly as he sat on his throne on the stage at every festival/program he held in the years late 1976 (Atlantic City, New Jersey program -- I was there) through 1981 at least. Heck, "Arti" was sung after nightly satsang meetings. "Arti" was the main devotional song sung by followers of Rawat. Please don't rewrite factual history, Momento. Rawat made plenty of claims to be God manifest in human form. Sylviecyn 14:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That is absolute rubbish Momento. I'm not suggesting for a minute he started that idea. I am pointing out that he continued that teaching. I have simply changed that sentence to more correctly read "but accepted the veneration of those followers who believed he was a divine incarnation" (I did that even before I read you'd removed it but there was an 'edit conflict') Why don't you leave my edits alone until others have commented? I've reduced the word count quite a bit throughout the article.PatW 22:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Your "veneration" addition is unbalanced. Of the year we're talking about, 1973, Collier says ""Guru Maharaj Ji, though he has never made a definitive statement on his own opinion of his own divinity, generally encourages whatever view is held by the people he is with." So he not only accepted the "veneration of followers who believed he was a divine incarnation" as you say, he also accepted the acclamation of those that saw him as "more of a teacher, a guide, a co-conspirator in their personal pursuit of a more heavenly way of life". Your addition promotes only one side of the story. In the past this would result in an editor adding the second half of Collier's quote. But since we are, at last, going towards brevity, I suggest you remove your one sided commentary, so I don't have to add the other side.Momento 03:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No, please go ahead and include the rest of the Collier quote it's necessary for balance. For goodness sake Momento you're the one who's advocating one-sidedness for the sake of brevity. I completely object to that. PatW 19:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be really grateful if Momento (and others) would at least discuss the changes I've made sensibly so as people like Vassayana can observe and make judgements. This is not set in stone yet - it is a sandbox page. Before I'd even finished making the changes Momento had deleted the bit I added and she has not even heard others opinions. It's not very encouraging at all to be jumped on so instantaneously.PatW 22:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

PatW, you feel entitled to remove other people's edits without discussion. Including edits that have been stable for weeks. But when I remove one of your many edits (which you admitted was incorrect) you start complaining? It's not very encouraging.Momento 02:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You yourself invited 'merciless editing' or some such words. This whole thread is my invitation to discuss the edits I've made as a response to that. Please show me some good faith.PatW 13:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Momento I don't think there's any justification in 'matching' anything. You say:
"Following your addition of "he" to "he encouraged devotion and many people returned to Ashram life", I have changed the style in the previous paragraph to match so "Rawat encouraged people to leave the ashram, discard Indian terminology and customs and reduced staff at DLM HQ from 250 to 80"
In 1977 he personally did take back control from DLM, encouraging people to do those things but prior to that, in the period referred to ie early 1976 it would be more correct to report (as I think Downton says) that he was very much influenced by his staff - people like Dettmers? etc. who advised him to close ashrams etc. So I thought it more accuarte to say that 'People were encouraged to.. etc' because essentially there is some evidence that Rawat felt co-erced by DLM and his staff to remove emphasis from devotion etc. I am trying to introduce the distinction that it wasn't only Rawat who wanted to de-Indianise in 1976 but it most definitely was him personally who wrested back control later that year and encouraged a return to devotion etc. PatW 23:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Downton disagrees with you. He says that "After the festival (Millenium 1973), there was a decided change in the guru's attitude about his role in the Mission. Nearly sixteen, he was ready to assume a more active part in deciding what direction the movement should take. This of course meant that he had to encroach on his mother's territory and, given the fact that she was accustomed to having control, a fight was inevitable. The end of 1973 saw Guru Maharaj Ji breaking away from his mother and his Indian past. He declared himself the sole source of spiritual authority in the Mission". And, "unlike some gurus who have come to this country and have easternized their followers, he became more fully westernized, which premies interpreted as an attempt to integrate his spiritual teachings into our culture". Downton continues "After shuffling the top leadership of the Mission, Guru Maharaj Ji began to decentralize organizational initiative and power by turning some of the decision-making over to local premie communities, while he maintained his status as the ultimate authority over spiritual and secular matters. This move stimulated another change in the movement by encouraging independent action on the part of premies. For example, the guru had inspired greater autonomy by saying in January 1976: "Don't expect that all these premies who are in the ashram right now are going to stay in the ashram. I hope they don't". Downton is clear, Rawat was in charge and Rawat encouraged people to leave the Ashram. So I'll amend your edit.Momento 03:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I made it about 72 words less... for what that little exercise was worth.PatW 23:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather more now. I would invite people to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal&action=history to check the edits I've made to the proposed article. There's too many to go into too much detail about here. I don't think many will be controversial as they obviously increase NPOV, or just precis - but I expect some will want to discuss further. PatW 00:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Maharaji

A large thrust of the article appears to be the assertion that Rawat removed "Indian trappings." But, Rawat retains the name "Maharaji," which is a term from India. I think that since most people don't know the Sanskrit or Hindi definition of the word "Maharaja or Maharaji," it's handy that wikipedia already has an article that explains its meaning as "great king," which is how it's always been defined by DLM and premies. See Maharaja. Let's discuss. Sylviecyn 14:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right of course, Sylvie, that is how we thought of him, and many still do, but Maharaja is also a common name and surname in India. Google gives 2 million hits, and apart from all the Indian restaurants, most seem to be personal websites under that name. I'm sure you've noticed that nearly everyone in India seems to have a name of enormous consequence, they don't seem to have many Bill Smiths or John Carpenters. Personally, I don't think this means anything. Rumiton 15:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If it didn't mean anything, I would assert Maharaji would have dropped the entire Indian title. But, it isn't a matter of what you or I think of him based on his name. Rawat is the surname that's very common in India, but "Maharaji" isn't a surname, rather, it's a title that means "Great King." It isn't derivitative of the English language and since this is the English language Wikipedia, it seems to me we ought to enlighten readers as to the meaning of the word, and since the "Maharaja" article explains it quite well, there's no point omitting that in an English encyclopedic article about someone who is "commonly known as, or affectionately known as Maharaji" by his followers. Either way -- name or title -- it's still a sanskrit/hindi word that can and should be defined for the benefit of readers. Sylviecyn 18:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Much of a do about nothing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not much ado about nothing. The fact that Rawat kept an Indian title/name is quite significant, given the many assertions in the article that he pushed to remove all "Indian trappings." I think it's pertinant for readers to know what the word "maharaji" means. Sylviecyn 10:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

(a) I have not seen any scholars making a big deal of his name; (b) In India people call others "Maharaj" as sign of respect to saints, yogis, religious scholars and high officials, and "Ji" means "Sir" (there are about 2,000,000 google hits for Maharaj!). Other similar ways to address such people used India are swami, pandit, shayk, pir, and others. So yes, he removed the Indian trappings that were not useful in the West. But he has not removed his origins... he still wears a kurta while in India, and he still draws from that tradition in many ways. So this issue about the name is indeed much of a do about nothing and not at all "pertinant (sic) for readers". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a definition of the word "maharaji." It's not original research, Jossi. People on Wikipedia define foreign terms all of the time, especially if there's an article about it here, and the word "Satguru" was linked until the recent mass rewrite. If Rawat was also known as "swami, pandit, shayk, pir, and others," I would recommend any of those be defined as they are foreign words in an English-language encyclopedia. Moreover, Rawat is known as "maharaji" throughout the world, not just in India, so you lose that argument. I'm not suggesting writing anything about it, my suggestion is to simply link the word "maharaji" to the maharaja article. That's all. Unless Rawat has trademarked the word "maharaji," I'm right on this. Thou dost protest too much. :-) Sylviecyn 11:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Jossi, I'm not the one making a big deal out of this. You haven't disallowed the linking of the word "satguru" so I'm puzzled by your reaction. Sylviecyn 12:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but no.... there is no need to link to maharaja because PR is not a maharaja. There is an article on maharaj that may be closer, but linking a name to generic definition is not appropriate, neither is standard. We could add a link in the see also section, though. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. I just wanted to check. I guess readers can look up the meaning of the word if they're interested. Thanks. Sylviecyn 17:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Ruminton's asseertion that Rawat's use of Maharaji as both a name and synonym for God was meaningless. Quite the opposite actually. Neither Rawat nor premeis were singing hymns of praise and praying to Maharaji 'the Indian Restaurant' or 'bloke from the deli'! The intended meaning was plainly very much the original Hindu version. The significant point is that Rawat refered to God as 'Maharaj Ji' in his teachings. As I say, there are plenty of examples of him praying to 'Maharaj Ji'. Time and time again he spoke of 'Maharaji' in the third person and the implication was that this third person was 'a' (maybe 'the') divine being. He talked about Maharaji's Grace, Maharaji's blessings etc. He voiced prayers to Maharaji as 'Lord'. Rawat used 'Maharaj Ji' as a synonym for God. There is no escaping that. The fact that he was also known almost universally as Maharaj Ji was no co-incidence. It was an honorary title. The perception and teaching was that there was a link and that link was that Guru Maharaji (the man) was the 'chosen one' the 'Perfect Master' come to show people 'Guru Maharaj Ji' (the God). I see it as unscrupulous to suggest that Maharaji was not widely perceived as a Divine authority largely because of stuff like this. PatW 19:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this answers the question. At a conference in January 1976, a premie asked him what he meant when he used the term "Guru Maharaj Ji." Question: "It confuses me when you speak of Guru Maharaj Ji and yourself as different-that Maharaj Ji has taught you or Maharaj Ji teaches or leads you-when you're Maharaj Ji." Answer: "Guru Maharaj Ji that gave me this Knowledge is my guru and that's whom I am referring to. Of course it's not physical. What I am actually referring to is that omnipotent power." Question: "You mean God?" Answer: "Well, we can't really harness Him down into words. It would be kind of hard."Momento 22:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I remind editors not to use this page to express personal opinions. This is not a forum to discuss our personal interpretations of titles, names, etc. I will not express my opinion on the matter and I encourage others to do the same. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Not so fast Jossi :-) this is a friendly and most valid discussion. We are not discussing 'our personal interpretations of titles, names, etc. We are clarifying from Rawat's own words what he meant by referring to Maharaj Ji in the 3rd person in his speeches. It's important to clarify why some people 'saw him as the Lord of Creation'. Which is stated in the article. Don't you think readers have a right to know why? Why did they think that? Ask yourself? What Momento recounts is really good. Was this from a valid resource by the way? Because I agree it's very useful for people to know exactly what Rawat meant. What Rawat is saying is that he is definitely referring to "that omnipotent power" and "Guru Maharaj Ji that gave me this Knowledge (who) is my guru". In other words he saw his guru, albeit not in physical form, as 'that omnipotent power'. PatW 09:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

See my response to Sylvnc above related to the meaning of the title Maharaj. As for what you say above, it may be a great conversation piece, but again not relevant as it pertains to the article. Remember that we are just reporting what reliable published sources say about a subject and not to "clarify Rawat's own words" to the readers. That will have to be left to them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The quote comes from Downton. Momento 11:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the proposed article I feel that there is a slightly excessive use of numbers of programs 'more than 40 events etc.' I'm not sure this may amount to a rather advertorial tone. Maybe there is no need to describe the cities he visited at quite such length. I purposely did not edit these bits because I feel that should come from those who put them there and of course, it might appear I am trying to minimise his achievements which I really am not.PatW 19:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

In the proposed article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal in the Leaving India section it said:

During these years, claims of divinity were made on his behalf by some Indian mahatmas, his family, and some followers, causing Abbie Hoffman, another Chicago Seven member, to comment: "If this guy is God, this is the God the United States of America deserves". Rawat denied the claim. In her autobiographical book, early follower Sophia Collier wrote, "There are those who sincerely believe that Guru Maharaj Ji is the Lord of Creation here in the flesh to save the world. And then there are those who know him a little better than that. They relate to him in a more human way... to them he is more of a teacher, a guide, a co-conspirator in their personal pursuit of a more heavenly way of life."

I've changed it to:
During these years, claims of divinity were made on his behalf by some Indian mahatmas, his family, and some followers, causing Abbie Hoffman, another Chicago Seven member, to comment: "If this guy is God, this is the God the United States of America deserves". In her autobiographical book, early follower Sophia Collier wrote, "Guru Maharaj Ji, though he has never made a definitive statement on his own opinion of his own divinity, generally encourages whatever view is held by the people he is with...There are those who sincerely believe that Guru Maharaj Ji is the Lord of Creation here in the flesh to save the world. And then there are those who know him a little better than that. They relate to him in a more human way... to them he is more of a teacher, a guide, a co-conspirator in their personal pursuit of a more heavenly way of life."

I used the replacement quote (in bold)
a) because it is shorter than the Question/Answer Rawat quote discussed just above - although that's very explanatory it's necessarily longer. b) Just saying 'Rawat denied the claim' is one-sided. The impression being rather opposite to what Collier actually says. So in balance I think it best to quote Collier more fully on this point. Although I would argue that, to lose space, it would be more appropriate to lose the second lengthier part of the Collier quote (There are those who..etc) which does not relate to Rawat's response at all. It merely reinforces the existing statement (claims of divinity were made on his behalf by some Indian mahatmas, his family, and some followers). PatW 19:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, no one suggested using the Q & A quote (I posted it for your info), so your "replacement" is not shortening the article, it's adding to it. So strike out reason a). Secondly, removing all evidence of Rawat's unambiguous and oft quoted denials of being God (as per the Hoffman "God" quote) and replacing it with Collier's opinion of Rawat's opinion of his divinity is disgraceful editing. And thirdly, your suggestion to remove Collier's long included quote describing the variety of opinion about Rawat (to make way for your "replacement") because you claim it "does not relate to Rawat's response at all" is outgaeous because you have single handedly removed Rawat's response entirely. This is the most heavy handed POV pushing I have seen in months.Reverted.Momento 21:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I totally refute that I am POV pushing at all. Let's see what others think. As Vassayana is the only impartial person around here perhaps he could comment. You there Vassayana?

From an Interview with John Wood of the Boston Globe with Guru Maharaj Ji in Newton, Massachusetts, August 3, 1973, re-published in And It Is Divine ~ Dec. 1973, Volume 2. Issue 2. and re-published in "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?" (November 1973), Bantam Books, Inc.

Question: Guru Maharaji Ji, are you God? – Answer: No. My Knowledge is God

Here is an unambiguous, well sourced denial given to a reporter and published three times in 1973. Removing this important info from an important discussion is blatant censorship. You removed it from the article because it contradicts your POV and you don't want Wiki readers to know the truth.Momento 21:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Duh! If you don't want to look any more dumb than you already do I suggest you stop ranting at me and hear me out. Yes we've all heard that one. Rawat just saying he's 'not God' by the way doesn't mean that he doesn't believe he's divine. There are plenty of Guru's who wouldn't dare say they are God but sure go on about their divine status. Just like we've shown you time and time again that Prem Rawat did! Why the hell do you think he called himself Guru Maharaji. That was a pretty divine title wasn't it? Even the Pope believes that he was divinely appointed and he doesn't go around telling people he can show them God! Next thing you'll say Jesus wasn't divine. He said I and my father are one and probably denied being God toofor all I know. That was pretty much Maharaji's tone too. I think that was exactly the point Collier was making. Collier reports, that "Guru Maharaj Ji, though he has never made a definitive statement on his own opinion of his own divinity, generally encourages whatever view is held by the people he is with". That is a really perfectly accurate, cool, balanced statement actually. Clearly Collier did not think Rawat had made any definitive denial about his divinity otherwise she wouldn't have said exactly that. Yes Rawat denied being God AND encouraged people in their views of him as divine or not divine. It's that simple. I totally refute that I am POV pushing at all. Let's see what others think before I put it back in. By the way, if you think Collier was wrong about that why do you use selective quotes from her book at all? Maybe she was wrong about those too. Could it be that you are POV pushing? You're too much.PatW 22:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, PatW: no personal attacks. I have placed a 2nd warning in your talk page. There is no need to verbally attack fellow editors, even if you disagree with them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Since the article includes Hoffman making the comment "If this guy's God etc", infomation about Rawat's view about the claim of being God is of utmost importance. You removed it. Collier is irrelevant. End of story.Momento 23:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally Momento where it says 'Rawat denied the claim' I don't see any supporting reference, so your blubbing about my 'blatant censorship' etc is way over-emotional. Of course I want Wiki readers to know the truth! I'd remind you I'm accountable here for my words - I've given my name and email..(and I'm getting emails of support from quite a few people)...you on the other hand are anonymous. Here's what someone just emailed me about that telling the truth bit:
"I have been following your posts on Wikipedia...Most of my adult life has been as a premie...but I feel the revisionism that is going on is outrageous. I was very much around in those years that are being revised and my memories are so different. It was a brilliant time and I loved it and can see no reason to cover it up....this was a big chunk of my life that is being told in untrue way"
PatW 22:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As I previously noted on the bio/proposal page, I left out the all the sources and cites while I wrote to easy the writing. I've provided you with one quote on the subject and there are many more. Read more research and less fan mail.Momento 23:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

So you're not going to attempt any sensible rebuttal to my reasoning. Good.. Then you lose the argument. Note. I actually have no objection to including the denial quote but not in isolation as you have presented it. I'll put the qualifying quote back then when we've heard from Vassayana and others.PatW 23:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Protest from editor PatW. Vassyana please comment on Jossi's warning

If anyone wants to get the complete gist of the arguments leading to this situation please read from PATW's EDITS TO PROPOSED ARTICLE abovePatW 02:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Jossi just gave me a 2nd warning on my user page not to attack Momento. I don't see any such warning on Momento's page who plainly attacked me first with a whole bunch of over-the-top accusations. As a protest I am quitting editing here altogether until I see some fair play. By that I mean Jossi retracting that warning. PatW 23:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Pat, I did not see Momento using uncivil remarks about you such as Duh! If you don't want to look any more dumb than you already do.... If he did, and I missed it, please show me were and I will place a warning on his page as well. I have asked Vassyana to take a look and help cool off the atmosphere here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

How about 'disgraceful editing' 'This is the most heavy handed POV pushing I have seen in months.' ' blatant censorship'. 'you don't want Wiki readers to know the truth' . Does that constitute 'Good Faith'? Seriously I took considerable trouble to take Momento up in good faith on the request to do some editing on the proposed article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal&action=history if you can be bothered to go and look you'll maybe agree that I made useful edits and I was treading on eggshells not to be pushing any POV. Momento has just attacked me mercilessly and I think very unreasonably, over wanting to include more of Coliers quote. I really think my points are valid. If my efforts are so consistently seen as suspicious, as if I want to lie about Rawat then I reckon I should leave this article to others. And as for being treated like a scoolboy, punished by an unfair prefect that is really a game I am not playing with you any more. Being treated with so much mistrust and avoidance of arguing perfectly sensible points is incredibly tiresome. I think me calling Momento dumb for attacking me AND reverting my edits twice without discussing my reasons was much less rude than his demonstrative expressions of lack of good faith.PatW 00:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent me, PatW My comments above were not about you adding more Collier, but removing Rawat's comment re Hoffman's God comment.Momento 01:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

** REFACTORED PERSONAL ATTACK**! You've removed more comments in your time than I've had hot dinners probably! Why can't I remove a quote too? Especially seeing it was on a 'proposal page' and I put what I consider to be a more explanatory quote there AND invited discussion on the matter.PatW 01:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have refactored your personal attack, Pat. This is not acceptable, sorry. A third warning is in on your page. Your personals attack have been reported at WP:ANI. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record..I want it preserved that the singular word you 'refactored' was 'Hypocrite'. Give readers a fair impression..There are plenty of much nastier things they might imagine I was calling Momento. Be fair Jossi.PatW 15:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No one has said you can't remove a quote. I was correcting your misinformation.Momento 01:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my warning, but I will let Vassyana comment on this, as probably you will be more open to listen to him than to me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you have amended your original comment. If you feel attacked, that does not give you the right to attack back. The responsibility to keep an atmosphere conducive to editing is the responsibility of each editor. Yes, Momento should not criticize your edits in strong language, but calling an editor "dumb" is crossing a line that you should have not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The only comment I amended Jossi was to add "I think me calling Momento dumb for attacking me AND reverting my edits twice without discussing my reasons was much less rude than his demonstrative expressions of lack of good faith." Be clear I have NOT amended any comments I made previously. Also I understand that there is some room in Wikipedia to not suffer fools gladly ad infinitum. And what better word can you find to describe someone who demonstrably lacks enough intelligence to argue properly? Or who is mute when you ask them a question?PatW 00:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Your claim that I reverted your edits twice is completely false.Momento 01:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Arggg! OK you reverted two of my edits you bright spark you. I see this is kind of a conspiracy to divert attention away from what I was actually saying to this STUPID argument about me calling you dumb. As if it was some kind of dreadful line I've crossed. PatW 01:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No PatW, I didn't revert two of your edits.Momento 01:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal&diff=119813007&oldid=119784563
and this one
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal&diff=119593047&oldid=119592799
How exciting I see you've asked Rawat to respond in person.PatW 01:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the one edit we're discussing once. It is your edit of 19:15, 2 April 2007 when you removed the sentence "Rawat denied the claim".Momento 09:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the paragraph to read as you edited it Pat. It more clearly reflects Collier's statement in her book and the actual truth about Rawat's non-denial-denials over the years about his own divinity. It's a secondary source that actually reflects the truth. Sylviecyn 02:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please

I will comment on this particular content dispute tomorrow. However, I will ask that you all drop it for now. This back and forth is not serving any useful purpose except to keep the dispute at a high temperature. Let's come back to this later, when we can discuss the content instead of other editors. I am asking that you please do this to allow the atmosphere to cool down. Vassyana 02:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool down

Everyone needs to take a step back, take a breath and relax. This is just an internet article. I understand that emotions run high and strong for both Rawat's supporters and detractors. However, everyone should try and relax, and possibly focus on something else for a bit. This is not the place to show the world how great Prem Rawat, and neither is it the place to expose his evils. We should only report what reliable sources have said about him in verifiable references, good, bad and neutral.

Regardless of how rude other editors may become, you should not stoop to their level or escalate the situation. If you type a message and you're about to hit save, but it contains a rude message or personal attack, do not hit save. In fact, close that window. Come back later in the day, or even the next day, to post your reply with a cooler head. That counts for edit summaries too. If someone else is doing it, it's all the more reason not to do it. Retaliating will only further escalate the situation and move the focus away from productively working to improve the article.

I also understand when people are being rude it can be frustrating. However, while personal attacks are against the rules, being a "donkey"-"pit" is not, though it is discouraged. If someone is just being blunt or rude, it's unlikely to draw warnings, while personal attacks will almost always draw warnings and blocks. It's just the nature of the rules. However, this should not be an excuse used to game the rules and bait others. Editors who continually engage in that behaviour (baiting) can expect to be brought under scrutiny, brought before arbitration or in extreme and repeated cases even banned from the community. While being a "donkeypit" is not against the rules on its own, disruptive behaviour is against the rules.

If you're really in a wiki state of mind, Dharmic religion could use a few more eyes and voices. Vedanta could use some attention to its citations and sources. Guru and the many articles related to it could use some attention and improvement as well. So, if you're really up for wiki-editing, but your emotions are running high here, there are other places for you to put your energy while letting your frustration settle down. Just some thoughts. Vassyana 01:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• I scrolled here to the bottom first, and have not yet read the thread above, but I have to agree here with everything said above by Vassyana. Especially with regard to the warnings about Personal attacks. Everyone should cool off, and try to focus on working on one issue at a time, and when it is not possible to find consensus on each single issue as they come up, seek out different opinions from uninvolved third parties, via standard channels. Smee 03:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Truce

This is an proposed truce.

1. Forgiveness of past transgressions. All parties agree to move forward from this point. What is done, is done. What is in the past, is in the past. Everyone will be considered to have a clean slate. Editors should avoid using past behaviour or editing patterns in discussing content disputes. Good faith should be assumed as part of this clean slate, regardless of past actions in relation to this article.
2. No personal attacks. All parties agree to refrain from insults and personal attacks on other editors, either directly, on talk pages or in edit summaries. Personal attacks instigate more conflict. This additionally includes rude, polemical and similar statements that may not cross the threshold for personal attacks, but are potentially offensive, uncivil or baiting. Such statements are antithetical to a productive and cooperative environment.
3. Focus on content. All parties agree to refrain from commenting on other editors and instead focus on commenting on the content. We need to keep a cool head, be courteous and work towards improving Wikipedia. Cloaking personal attacks, rude comments and polemics by addressing them to the "content, not the editor" is still unacceptable. Do not split hairs between claiming that an editor is "pushing propaganda" or "stupid" and using the same terms for an edit. It is obvious that the comment about the edit relates to the editor who made it.
4. No outside battles. All parties agree to avoid edit wars with other participants, even outside of this article. Edit battles, editing to prove a point and disruptive editing don't improve Wikipedia and distract us from productive activity. Aside from concerns about wikistalking, conflicts in other places will only serve to further ruin the relationship between the warring editors, thereby poisoning the atmosphere here.
5. Good faith cooldown. Any party violating this truce shall take an 4 hour cool down break from this article and interacting with the participant(s) that are part of the conflict. Other parties will not tag warn or report the violating behaviour provided the offending editor takes the self-imposed break. If a second violation occurs in the same day, measured as 24 hours since the last violation, the offender shall take a full 24 hour cool down break. As with the 4 hour break, the violating behaviour should not be reported if the offending editor takes the self-imposed break. We all get a bit heated or passionate at times and we should try to be understanding of others, but also be aware of our own behaviour. Taking the break and not reporting the behaviour are both shows of good faith. If another editor breaks the terms of this truce, or otherwise behaves unacceptably, it is not a reason to do the same. Be cool, be courteous and take a short break if needed.
6. Reporting violations. Habitual violations of this truce should be reported as appropriate. However, all participants should give ample opportunity for an offending editor to take the self-imposed good faith cooldown. Participants understand that if they continually violate these terms that their actions may be interpreted in light of this agreement, since it could be interpreted as evidence aganst the value of a promise to stop. All parties agree to have their actions considered under the stricter standards for civility in this truce, if reported for repeated violations. Before reporting offending actions in official channels, involved editors should make a good faith attempt to have an outside party or mediator attempt to resolve the situation.

Agree

• Welcome back Vassanya.Momento 09:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Sure. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• I would want the last paragraph to be worded mucch stronger. (a) Zero tolerance on incivility; (b) abiding by 1RR; and (c) 48 hour automatic block for an editor that breaks these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Decline

Headline text

Comments

The above is a proposed truce for those involved in this article. It is fairly self explanatory. If anyone has any comments or concerns about this proposed truce, please bring them up and I will try to rework it towards everyone's satisfaction. Please do not decline to participate in the truce if you feel it can be reworked to accomodate your concerns. Instead, please post your concerns here, so they can be addressed. This is simply a proposal that can easily be modified to suit the situation and involved editors. Vassyana 07:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Now Jossi has given me a third warning for calling Momento a hypocrite. I notice no-one yet has properly read and commented on the arguments leading up to this argument. I won't accept any truce unless Jossi removes both those warnings and others have sensibly commented on my edits as from .PatW Edits on Proposed Page heading all the way down to here. And I stand by my protest which is that I will also no longer edit here otherwise. PatW 13:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The way you addressed other editors, the flaming, the escalation that ensued, and your dismissive attitude towards repeated requests to cool off, and not address other editors disrespectfully, was simply not acceptable, Pat, sorry. Editors are held accountable for their behavior in Wikipedia. Those warnings stand. Now, there is a proposal on the table for looking ahead rather than looking back on the basis of a tabula rassa". That is very a generous offer that puts your past behavior and the warnings behind. If you do not to wish to take that offer, well, that is your choice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel it's unfair here. Kind of like you and Momento are 'filibustering' ie playing for time... creating a disturbance to draw attention away from my points and concentrate on irritating me with 'straw man' arguments to the point of me committing the deadly crime of being mildly rude. If no-one can be bothered to more intelligently address my arguments then I consider I'm wasting my time. Whatsmore your perpetual officious, humourless reprimands amount to plenty of bad faith and baiting from your direction. That's the way it feels and would like to know whether that's the way it looks to more impartial people. So far nobody has read the dialogue that escalated into my rude comment. Isn't it a little premature to accuse me of being the only culprit in this matter? Also as I said I am waiting to see how you guys resolve the issue of the Collier quote. If I think there is any more 'filibustering' I'm giving up on this article. That is my last word.PatW 15:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The Collier quote isn't and has never been the issue. The issue is that you removed "Rawat denied the claim" (that has at least four supporting cites) that followed Abbie Hoffman's quote "If this guy is God etc" and replaced it with an obvious and provably incorrect Collier quote.Momento 08:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It is fine to quote more of Collier even if you think that she is provably wrong. Remember WP:ATT states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true [..]". Andries 12:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If you find my requests to cool off and being civil towards other editors, to be "officious and humorless", let me remind you that civility and no personal attacks are official policy and two of the few requirements from editors contributing to this project. If you do not want to abide by these, you can stop contributing right now. Not abiding by these is not an option that can be negotiated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Pat, let me try a little. You wrote, quoting Collier, "Guru Maharaj Ji, though he has never made a definitive statement on his own opinion of his own divinity..." Is it the problem that other editors have quoted sources where Prem Rawat specifically denies divinity? Is that the contentious part? Rumiton 15:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ruminton, thank you for chiming in..I really appreciate your trying to address my point, but I really think I should leave this discussion for you and Vassayana and others to clarify right now. ThanksPatW 15:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Question

I notice some other Wiki biographies use a format where paragraphs with headers can stand alone, that is, the text does not flow smoothly around them. The result is repetition. Personally, I feel the text should flow. Comments? Rumiton 04:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't understand. Can you link to some examples.Momento 07:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking around Wiki, I think I answered my own question. This thing mostly happens when editors want something mentioned, so they put it in several sections in the hope that anyone who reads that paragraph only will get their message. We had a bit of that here for a while, when I think the Sant tradition was mentioned in the India section, and also in Teachings, and there were a couple of other repeated issues as well. I can see it is better for the text to flow logically, and for the headers just to give a hint as to the paragraph content. Which is what we have now. As you were! Rumiton 14:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Teachings

I have just done some more editing here, mainly taking words out that didn't seem to be earning their keep. Have a look. Rumiton 13:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rumiton. I'm concerned that quotes from reliable sources are being tweaked to the extent that the prose (while may be fine) is changing the meaning of the source material and the authors' intent. Could you please provide the sources for those edits?? Thanks. Sylviecyn 16:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sylvie, Yes I do see the problem. I hope I have only sub-edited lines that are paraphrased from researchers such as George D. Chryssides, that is to say, not precise quotes given in quote marks. There was no intention to change the meaning. It is tricky when something needs to be smoothed or made denser to improve the article, but the original source is not at hand. And I see the need for further work of this nature. Can anyone help out with this? Rumiton 07:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ella2, please ensure that your edits are faithful to the quoted source. Example - you added "the work" to the following sentence "and finance the work and travel of his staff and mahatmas around the world" but the quoted source doesn't mention "work"; just "In addition, his entourage of family, close officials and mahatmas are all financed on their frequent trips around the globe to attend the mission's festivals". You need to find a reliable source, otherwise your addition of "work" is original research and not allowed. In fact, this article is being reduced in size according to Good Article recommendations. The proposed article can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal Momento 06:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Just did some more work on the draft proposal, taking out some more repetitive stuff and switching around the sections. Rumiton 15:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

So far, I think your edits are fine, although I may remove some of your your commas -- it's really a matter of personal taste, I think. :>) One thing I've noticed in the article, however. I don't know if there's a standard in Wikipedia for how dates are written, but within one article they ought to be consistent, imo. For example, "17 June 1971," as opposed the the American style of "June 17, 1971." I don't care either way -- both are correct -- as long as there's consistency through-out. What do you think, Rumiton? Also, for everyone's information, when using quotes, the punctuation is always placed within the quotes, i.e., "Punctuation within quote." Hope you're well. Sylviecyn 16:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If you use June 19, 1973 (written as [June 19]], [[1973]], the wiki software will localize the display of the date according to the preferences for dates that you have set in "Preferences". So those users who have set the American date standard will see June 19, 1973 and those using British standards will see 17 June, 1973. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Concerning punctuation within quotes, periods and commas always go inside quotation marks. The placement of question marks with quotes follows this logic: If a question is in quotation marks, the question mark should be placed inside the quotation marks, and there is no need to add a period. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

How do you know about that? I cannot say that I am an expert, but I thought that the periods go beyond the quotation mark if it is the ending of the quoted sentence. (I have not followed this rule myself). Andries 13:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I normally do that thing with the quote marks. Just a mistake if I didn't somewhere. And I know I use a lot of commas. I feel that they do more good than harm, and confusion is more often caused by their omission than their inclusion. But if they get up your nose, then they probably will for someone else, too, so delete some of them. Thanks. Has anyone thought yet of the kosher way to go about tweaking paraphrases when the original is not at hand? Rumiton 03:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's not contentious, don't look for hidden eggs. I have made a few edits to the proposal, see editor talk.Momento 04:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Lack of discussion on bio/proposal

I'm concerned that the bio/proposal is being cut down too much, is being editing without discussion (saying you made edits, take a look, isn't discussion) or cites for sources, and material is being removed for the sole purpose of keeping the article short, rather than endeavoring to make it a quality piece.

• The disputed paragraph containing Collier's quote has been edited again without discussion. That's a contentious paragraph. Momento, so please explain why you think the removed portion of Collier's quote is incorrect. It's what Collier said in her book, therefore, it's not incorrect as a quote from that source. Also, while Rawat denies being God in the Wood (Boston Globe) article, he does compare himself to Jesus, who is most certainly considered divine by Christians. The controversy about what Rawat has said about himself is about his divinity, not whether or not he ever stated he is God, which he has also said, e.g., "Guru is greater than God."
• If the new lead is only two sentences in length as shown on the proposal, then it doesn't comply with the guideline WP:LEAD which requires that the lead review the contents of the article. As it stands on the draft, it only is two sentences long and only states information about Rawt's childhood, in which case, would warrant removal of any info on his life after age 13.
• I don't agree with your proposal about sources, Momento. Everything that comes from a source must be referenced as such, Otherwise it may be considered original research and original prose.
• I'm going to start editing the main article because I cannot agree to the proposed draft as it stands and there's no way to make comparisons between the two. While I appreciate your efforts, this has become very confusing to follow.

Concensus has not been reached on the draft, and it's not ready to be transferred to the main page. Let's discuss. Thank you Sylviecyn 11:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the bio proposal is a sandbox page and I understand that is a work-in-progress and a convenient place to explore alternatives without too much contention. Just note that as there may be no consensus for the bio proposal, any major edits to the current article should also be discussed with the intention to seek consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Also note that other editors have been making quite a number of edits to the article, mainly copyediting for better flow and that will be lost if major portions are transferred from drafts pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The proposal has been in existence for a month since the article failed the GA and there have been over 300 edits in PRTalk about it since then, hardly a lack of discussion. A major point was to reduce the size of an article that was described as "bloated, or simply too long". If you think something is important to include, propose it.

• The Collier quote was inserted without discussion by PatW. Since the sentence in question directly follows Hoffman's famous quote about Rawat being God, Rawat's answer to the question "Are you God", is far more appropriate and important than Collier's quote about divinity. The view that "Guru is greater than God" is discussed in the article in "teachings"."Divine" means "of, from or like God or a god", not "God", any priest, imam, or monk can make that claim. The issue of Rawat's divinity relates to the fact the Rawat's teachings prior to the early 80's were couched in Hindu religious terms. Since 83 he has dropped relgious imagery from his messaage. That is what the scholars refer to when they talk about Rawat or his message being "divine".
• The lede may be too short but if you believe that Rawat is only notable for being a "speaker and teacher" from an early age, it does cover the contents of the article.
• I have always maintained material should be reliably sourced and cited. What I suggested was to try and use one source for each paragraph rather than citing many sources that say same the same thing. Take a look at the Abbie Hoffman article, large parts of it are freely written and mention only one source.

Momento 21:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think the Collier quote is important as it clarifies the issue of Rawat's behavior when addressed as someone divine by his followers. That's especially important since the controversy is that Rawat denied being God all the time, while didn't disabuse his followers from thinking that he was "greater than God," divine, like Jesus, etc. That's the crux of the issue, not just Indian trappings. But the issue of Rawat's claims or denial of divinity is not just based upon the Hindu religious aspects and influence in the NRM, nor if he was considered "God," by followers. It's about how he taught his followers about that issue. Evidence of that are the words that Rawat himself uses in the Wood Boston Globe article. Rawat explains himself and his divinity (or perceived divinity) and Knowledge using mostly Chrisitan terms and comparisons from the Bible, which has nothing to do with India or Hinduism. collier's quote backs this up. These two sources offer a balance to the "Indian trappings" concept. Rawat's statments also reflect the style of teachings going on at that time in the NRM (early 70s) i.e., a lot of comparison of Rawat to Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad, etc., along with quoting from the Bible and other scriptures not Indian. I think the Collier quote should go back in because it reflects her complete thought process on the matter, otherwise the intent of her meaning is lost, as well as taken out of context.
• Also, PatW inserted the quote without discussion here, but you reverted it without discussion. I want the complete Collier quote but don't want to engage in edit warring. I've become gun-shy about making any edits to these articles. I've done a lot of research, but I'm afraid to be bold when editing, based on my prior experience.
• Regarding the lead. It's not what I believe that matters. I was surprised that Rumiton reduced it to two sentences and you approved of that enthusiastically, given what the lead guidelines require. The article is about Rawat's whole life, not just childhood. The lead must reflect the content of the article.
• Hoffman isn't alive and there is far more material published about him than about Rawat. I think that the standard is probably different for Hoffman versus Rawat given that Hoffman is dead, and Hoffman was far more famous than Rawat ever was and now is. He was a generational icon. The majority of Rawat's life has gone by with little press coverage, except for the 70s when he first brought his NRM to the west, i.e., he's not known to the general public. Rawat's been an adult far longer than he was a child. Thanks for responding Momento and Jossi... Sylviecyn 12:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The lead needs three paragraphs, not just one. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitions of "mind"

The definition of the mind by Haan is missing. Haan's definition differs from that of Derks and Van der Lans. I will edit in. Btw, Haan is not so much talking about Rawat's teachings, but more about the beliefs and practices of the DLM. Andries 13:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If we include that, we need to include other material from scholars about that subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Why and what material by what scholars about the mind should be included? Haan's comments are somewhat out of context unless his description of the mind as used in the DLM is included. Andries 16:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Truce

This is an proposed truce.

1. Forgiveness of past transgressions. All parties agree to move forward from this point. What is done, is done. What is in the past, is in the past. Everyone will be considered to have a clean slate. Editors should avoid using past behaviour or editing patterns in discussing content disputes. Good faith should be assumed as part of this clean slate, regardless of past actions in relation to this article.
2. No personal attacks. All parties agree to refrain from insults and personal attacks on other editors, either directly, on talk pages or in edit summaries. Personal attacks instigate more conflict. This additionally includes rude, polemical and similar statements that may not cross the threshold for personal attacks, but are potentially offensive, uncivil or baiting. Such statements are antithetical to a productive and cooperative environment.
3. Focus on content. All parties agree to refrain from commenting on other editors and instead focus on commenting on the content. We need to keep a cool head, be courteous and work towards improving Wikipedia. Cloaking personal attacks, rude comments and polemics by addressing them to the "content, not the editor" is still unacceptable. Do not split hairs between claiming that an editor is "pushing propaganda" or "stupid" and using the same terms for an edit. It is obvious that the comment about the edit relates to the editor who made it.
4. No outside battles. All parties agree to avoid edit wars with other participants, even outside of this article. Edit battles, editing to prove a point and disruptive editing don't improve Wikipedia and distract us from productive activity. Aside from concerns about wikistalking, conflicts in other places will only serve to further ruin the relationship between the warring editors, thereby poisoning the atmosphere here.
5. Good faith cooldown. Any party violating this truce shall take an 4 hour cool down break from this article and interacting with the participant(s) that are part of the conflict. Other parties will not tag warn or report the violating behaviour provided the offending editor takes the self-imposed break. If a second violation occurs in the same day, measured as 24 hours since the last violation, the offender shall take a full 24 hour cool down break. As with the 4 hour break, the violating behaviour should not be reported if the offending editor takes the self-imposed break. We all get a bit heated or passionate at times and we should try to be understanding of others, but also be aware of our own behaviour. Taking the break and not reporting the behaviour are both shows of good faith. If another editor breaks the terms of this truce, or otherwise behaves unacceptably, it is not a reason to do the same. Be cool, be courteous and take a short break if needed.
6. Reporting violations. Habitual violations of this truce should be reported as appropriate. However, all participants should give ample opportunity for an offending editor to take the self-imposed good faith cooldown. Participants understand that if they continually violate these terms that their actions may be interpreted in light of this agreement, since it could be interpreted as evidence aganst the value of a promise to stop. All parties agree to have their actions considered under the stricter standards for civility in this truce, if reported for repeated violations. Before reporting offending actions in official channels, involved editors should make a good faith attempt to have an outside party or mediator attempt to resolve the situation.

Agree

• Welcome back Vassanya.Momento 09:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Sure. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• I would want the last paragraph to be worded mucch stronger. (a) Zero tolerance on incivility; (b) abiding by 1RR; and (c) 48 hour automatic block for an editor that breaks these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreement

I invite all editors involved to sign their names below and agree to these terms of engagement in addition to Vassayna:

1. Zero tolerance on WP:NPA violations
2. Abiding by 1RR (only one revert per day)
3. Anyone breaking these rules will agree to take a 48 break from editing the article and making comments on talk.

• Agree ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Agree, except reverting Ella2's edits which verge on vandalism.Momento 03:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I ask that you have wait on the truce/agreement while Vassyana gets his computer problems straightened out and gets back online. There's abolutely no reason to rush into this agreement --this article has been online for years now and another week or two won't make or break it. I haven't been ignoring the "truce," btw, but I've been waiting for Vassyana to be available so I can ask him some specific questions that I have concerning this truce/agreement. I think it's best to leave this matter to an impartial, neutral third party. Thanks for your patience, Jossi, and best wishes... Sylviecyn 20:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Me too. If my warnings and then this 'truce' thing result in my arguments about the Collier quote being ignored, (that led up to the warnings/agreement etc.) I cannot agree. Since it would seem that Vassayana and Smee had not read this before the proposed 'agreement' I will wait and see whether they do or not. In the meantime I won't be editing here but if anyone wants to join in the continuing argument on my user page feel free. I suggest you take a look. I have found the original Collier quotes and more.PatW 20:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Take your time to understand what agreeing to this will mean. No rush. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ella2

Please discuss any future edits here before making them. Your latest edit has many errors and I have reverted it.Momento 03:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Momento, take some time and engage Ella2 to explain how we collaborate in WP. Seems that Ella2 is a new editor. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, you say the lede should be three paragraphs. I was working from the Wiki "News Article" which says: "The lede is usually the first sentence, or in some cases the first two sentences, and is ideally 20-25 words in length."

I thought I did pretty good. Rumiton 10:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The "lede" in a news article is not the same as a "lead section" in a Wiki article. I've split it down the middle, see bio/propposal.Momento 22:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Mystery solved. On March 12, IsabellaW (Talk | contribs) inserted her own Marta Robles sentence into Barret's 2001 quote. Ella2 has used the fraudulent quote believing it to be genuine. It is not. I have repaired the quote.Momento 10:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

IsabellaW is also a newbie and probably made a mistake, being not familiar with the ref format. The quote from Marta Robles is in the book "Peace is Possible", and could be restored on its own, if needed be. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR and WP:SYN

I am following the discussions on several pages regarding the use of quotes from PR's addresses, and would like to remind editors of the principles behind WP:NOR and WP:SYN: In Wikipedia we are not to make our own analysis of subjects, rather we report the analysis made and published by others. So, these discussions may be interesting as a discussion of editors opinions, but has not relevance and/or bearing for the article. Note that a substantial collection of quotes is available at Wikiquote to which we are linking from this article. That collection is available to readers for them to make their own conclusions. I will oppose any selective use of quotes to assert a specific viewpoint, regardless of what viewpoint is that, on the basis of violation of WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NOR. An edit counts as original research if:

It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Has it not occurred to you that the reason we're discussing the quotes is so we can reach a consensus on what would not be a 'selective use of quotes to assert a specific viewpoint' ? Is it showing good faith to adopt an initially aggressive and suspicious stance towards us like this? PatW 19:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You keep using an argument of "good faith" as a way to dismiss my concerns. Well, what about taking my comments in good faith, for once Pat? My position is that we should not use quotes at all, as any compilation of quotes that has not been published as such will be a violation of WP:NOR. That is why you will not find quotes from primary sources in biographical articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well that's not really what you said. You sounded like you considered our discussions about quotes valueless. In fact now you've explained I'm all ears. I'm mystified as to how we arrive at an article without using quotes and without expressing a POV. Do elaborate.PatW 21:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Very easy: we simply report what secondary sources say about a subject. We can use primary sources, with caution, in particular about subjects about which there are disputes, as it is way to easy to quote out of context or selectively quote to assert a certain viewpoint. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh is that all? I get that. Jossi I'm sorry but that is no news old chap. Of course it's also easy for people to selectively quote what secondary sources say about a subject to assert a viewpoint. (which is precisely what I've criticised Momento for). And that is why it's well worth establishing through discussion what viewpoints merit asserting. After all, by reproducing a secondary source we are effecively asserting the viewpoint of it's author too. Right? My point is that there's no getting away from having to assert somebody's viewpoint...the important thing is to balance the viewpoints fairly.PatW 21:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but your discussion was entering into territory that was beyond that, and I just though it appropriate it to address it. Just note that when we describe the viewpoint of a secondary source, we are actually describing the opinion of the author and not asserting that viewpoint as a fact (and we clearly say that in articles: "according to XYZ, this and that".) When we use primary sources, it is a completely different situation: we cannot selectively quote PR from primary sources (i.e. public addresses) to assert the viewpoint of PR on different subjects, as that will be in violation of WP:SYN, unless of course that selection of primary sources was put together and published by a secondary source... It is not that difficult, really. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, Momento just personally attacked Pat and myself on Pat's talk page. Momento broke the truce which he signed. But, I wanted to also say that it's not fair for Momento to unilaterally replace the entire article without concensus and also an independent review by Vassyana. So, I object to that. Also, I don't think it's encyclopedic to try to stifle someone's open discussion on someone's talk page about the contents of any article, especially when the heading of the section is entitled "Arguments about..." I haven't edited the article or the draft, I was only hashing out some thoughts with Pat and plan to continue to do so. Jossi, you and Momento are the ones that have chosen most of the quotes on Wikimedia that are now prominately linked to the Rawat article, and you've over-ruled others over there, too. You even have quotes by several people on Wikiquote who are not Prem Rawat -- people who have no viable connection to him or his quotes. You also chose the quote that's currently at the bottom of the Rawat article today, and you have also linked to several others that are on the Voice of Maharaji, Eurocommunications, and other primary source websites. All of that is original research and/or primary sources. Finally, what gives one editor, in this case Momento, the right to over-rule everybody else who has an interest in an article? I can't find that in the guidelines, perhaps you could help me find it. Sylviecyn 22:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, (a) The quotes in Wikiquote were added by user:Andries, myself, and others; (b) External links are appropriate as per WP:EL; (c) the section in Wikiquote "About Prem Rawat" is in accordance to guidelines there; (d) Primary sources such as related website can be used in articles with som exceptions (see: WP:SELFPUB); (e) Momento has neither more rights nor less rights than any other editor in Wikipedia.; (f) If Momento has violated WP:NPA, please show me where, I may have missed it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I checked the article and could not find any links to Eur communications, or Voice of Maharaji. There is a source taken from a no longer available website (voiceforpeace) that could be easily replaced. I will look for a replacement source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The day is coming soon

I am going to find sources for all the bio/proposal material and when that's done I'm going to propose we replace this article with the one that has been written according to Wiki:Lead and GA standards.Momento 22:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you ask Vassyana to review it before that? That could be useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll finish it up first, even put in photos and invite him to review it.Momento 22:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to apologize Momento, for misreading your statement above and then complaining about it. That was wrong of me. I was skimming instead of reading. So please accept my apology for that. Also, do you or Jossi know when Vassyana will be back? I understand he's having computer troubles. I value his input and think he has been reviewing the article fairly. Thanks. Sylviecyn 15:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I will email him to find out what's up. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw that the comments from Kranenborg and Melton had been removed. Please do not remove or freely interpret them. I have stated this many many times and I will simply revert without warning or further explanation. Andries 16:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed from where? I still see these in the article. As for threats to "revert without warning" I would argue that it would be unacceptable behavior by anyone. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed from the bio-proposal. I have stated my opinion so many times that removal of scholarly summaries of Rawat's teachings is unacceptable. Andries 07:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that I do not have to repeat my warnings over and over again. Andries 09:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Andries, there are hundreds of pages of well sourced and verifiable material on Rawat and we can't put it all in. Kranenborg and Melton are well represented and one way to include them, and many others, is to paraphrase their main points which is what I have done. If you made a judgement on the amount and value of scholastic material written about Rawat, Downton should have 100 times more material in any Rawat article than Kranenborg or Melton.Momento 08:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are misparaphrasing Melton and Kraneborg. Please do not do that. Andries 10:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What I learnt from editing this and other Wikipedia articles is that one way to evade disputes about interpretations of sources and (mis-)paraphrasing is to quote them. You have repeatedly and heavily accused me of misparaphrasing and I think that your bio-proposal is worse than what I ever did in this article. Andries 10:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As I told you, this article cannot possibly quote all the material available. Melton and Krannenborg are already over represented. What important thing did they say that aren't included?Momento 10:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The explicit claims of Divinity that Rawat made according to Kranenborg and Melton are missing in the bioproposal. I will revert removal of this. Andries 10:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Also the request according to Kranenborg to surrender to the guru. And the discussion of the mind by Derks and Van der Lans. I find it very difficult to assume your good faith when you have removed all well-sourced scholarly summaries from your bio proposal that may be construed as negative. Andries 10:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

May be the day is coming soon that I will request formal mediation or arbitration. Andries 10:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read Vassanya's excellent critique of this article (GA Review (Failed)) Particularly the section where he says this articloe is "bloated" and "too long" and "needs to be edited mercilessly to produce more consise writing". Removing some of the well-sourced scholarly summaries is necessary. Kranenborg's comment about "surrender to the guru" is adequately covered in the teachings section with - Sants hold that true religion is a matter of surrendering to God "who dwells in the heart," and that the Guru or Perfect Master is "an embodiment of God on Earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration." Kabir, the 15th century poet wrote: "Guru and God both appear before me. To whom should I prostrate? I bow before Guru who introduced God to me". Derks and Van der Lans comment about "all evil should be attributed to the mind," doesn't make sense without including DLM’s concept of mind which refers primarily to "a state of consciousness characterized by everything but passive, nonrational confidence and trust." and "indicate the same obstacle of freeing oneself from former bonds". Which is all too long. And is better containedMomento 11:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I think this is not adequately covered in the bio-proposal. You have copied a lot of text from the entry Sant Mat to your bio-proposal while removing scholarly summaries that treat Prem Rawat. Possible out-of-context quoting of Derks and Van der Lans can be corrected with a few words and this is no good reason to remove what they wrote. I suggest that you remove other quotes if you think the entry is too long. Andries 11:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well this is where we're going to have to agree to differ. Downton's 220 page book on premies is of far more value to this subject that Derks & van der Lans article in a journal. Just because Kronnenborg and Derks and van der Lans are Dutch doesn't mean they get special treatment.Momento 11:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Both Reender Kranenborg and Jan van der Lans were or are well-respected, except by strong anti-cultists. They are not anti-cult or countercult writers. Derks and Van der Lans or their associates interviewed premies. They also published a comment on Downton's book in a book edited by Barker. i.e. . "Subgroups in Divine Light Mission Membership: A Comment on Downton" in The book Gods and Men: New Religious Movements in the West. edited by Eileen Barker Macon, GA: Mercer University Press. (1983) pp. 303-307. You can read the complete article on the ex-premie forum, post nr. 6263 with subject "Subgroups in Divine Light Mission", posted on 05/22/2006 by Ocker. Andries 11:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Invitation for comment on a discussion which pertains to this article

I particularly want to invite Vassayana, Smee, and anyone who is neither a student of Rawat or an ex-student, to add their comment in the concluding section to a discussion we have had on my user page here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PatW#Arguments_about_most_honest_use_of_quotes_to_describe_views_about_Rawat.27s_perceived_Divinity
The reason being that I believe that this discussion perfectly clarifies (in not too many words) why, in this article, it should be made clearer that even without the agency of students calling Rawat Lord etc. his words and those of his father completely suffice to explain why past students worshipped him as such and entertained many Hindu concepts. I contend that in the current article, others are disproportionately made to appear responsible for the perception he was 'the' or 'a' Lord of the Universe /Saviour-type figure and so, this article should fail a Good Article review simply on this account.PatW 20:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. You can continue the discussions on your opinions on the subject on your talk page, or somewhere else, but these personal opinions have no bearing on this article. As said many times before, in Wikipedia articles we only describe the significant viewpoints published in reliable sources, and not our opinions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Also note that good article status only means that the article is well sourced, well written, compliant with the core content policies of the project, stable, and nothing more. Currently,only 2,105 out of 1,738,169 articles have achieved this status.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

1) I think that Vassayana's comments about 'honesty' in his review above suggest that a discussion such as ours is most pertinent. In our discussion we never propose to use unreliabe sources and we discuss which reliable sources would be the most honest to use. And we do that by considering the picture painted by a number of primary and secondary sources which are discussed with considerable success in my opinion.

2) Describing 'our' opinions is not the intended outcome of our discussion. That is misleading of you to suggest that. Moreover, our opinions are provenly not invalid since, as I pointed out (and you agreed) there's no getting away from having to assert somebody's opinion...the important thing is to balance the viewpoints fairly. That involves the opinions of editors. And that in itself also necessarily involves discussion amongst editors, with the clear aim to reach agreement on how and which reliable sources to include, and how we present them. My hope is that neutral parties will look at our arguments and help us agree which choices paint an honest picture. I don't see how you can possibly have a problem with that.PatW 21:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You say the important thing is to balance the viewpoints fairly and that is correct, when we discuss published opinions that is, and not our opinions. Many people confuse NPOV and think that a fair balance, is the fair balance of editor's opinions, but that is not correct. The good judgment of editors is needed to summarize these published opinions, but that's all, otherwise we cross into original research, that is not acceptable. As for Vassyana's comments about honesty, I invite you to re-read his comments. His opinion was that some of the sources used were not well summarized and that do not honestly represent what these sources say. As he did not give specific details on which sources he was referring to, what was implied is to revise all sources used and stay as close as possible to them when summarizing them. That is what editors should do: discuss these sources and agree on how to best summarize them and describe them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I've understood and our discussion perfectly falls in line with your last sentence as per what editors should do. You seem to be worrying about nothing.PatW 21:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I would argue the opposite: that you are worrying about nothing. The current article has plenty of sources describing these aspects: Kranenborg, Downton, Collier, van der Lans, Hunt, Barret, and others. Can the summary of these viewpoints be improved upon? Sure. But I have not seen any proposals that do that, rather, I have witnessed long discussions about editors experiences and opinions that IMO, are not helpful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Another issue, is that not all involved editors have accepted the terms of engagement proposed by Vassyana (and the more stringent ones proposed by me). That leaves me wondering if there is no intention to agree and abide by these. Not that there is an obligation for editors to accept these terms, but would surely be useful if and when the editing gets hot. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I will agree when Vassayan has shown me that his comment is not as flippant as I took it, by his/her acknowledging having read the discussions and arguments that led up to me being baited and even myself since attacked. I have emailed Vassayana voicing my concern that if I agree to 'bury the past' all my arguments will be also buried. I really want some comment from others on the arguments and not just on the terms of engagement. That's just my personal request. You may have noticed that our discussions have actually cooled down quite well on my user page. Maybe that is a good sign.PatW 21:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no mystery as to why people worshipped Rawat. It's all clearly spelled out in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal. But to save any confusion, here it is - Scholars have claimed that Rawat's teaching springs from the Indian Sant tradition, as embodied in the Sant Mat, Advait Mat and Radhasoami schools. Sant teachings are distinguished theologically by a loving devotion to a divine principle, universalism, equality, direct experience, rejection of ritual and dogma, and by attempts to reconcile conflicting doctrines (syncretism). Sants hold that true religion is a matter of surrendering to God "who dwells in the heart," and that the Guru or Perfect Master is "an embodiment of God on Earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration." Kabir, the 15th century poet wrote: "Guru and God both appear before me. To whom should I prostrate? I bow before Guru who introduced God to me". Could it be any clearer.Momento 22:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The subtle innuendo here apparently knows no bounds and is literally endless. That bit is not presented as an explanation as to why people worshipped Rawat. It seems tacked on very reluctantly after a load of insidious insinuation selected largely to imply Rawat was primarily concerned with getting rid of all those 'He is God' concepts and others were to blame. Someone has completely reverted that Collier quote to reflect their POV so many times it's clear they won't give an inch. Someone is sitting on this article- suppressing everything that is not to their liking. It's all them - them -them. They seem to be gloating as if delighted to be nsulting others intelligence with puerile taunts and revertions. And where do these 'scholarly links' lead us? To current student and completely un-biased Ron Geaves of course, (maybe that's where they've slipped in the 'rejection of ritual and dogma' bit) - and then to Wiki articles on Sant Mat where whose been editing? ...JossiPatW 00:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I love a conspiracy theory as much as anyone but are you really saying that Lipner, Julius J. (Hindus: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices), Kabir, Melton, David Lane, Kranenborg etc. are all conspiring to provide a fictitious history for Rawat and his father? As for the "He is God" concept, others were 100% to blame.Momento 01:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The bio-proposal freely interprets Melton and Kranenborg due to your POV described hereabove. You committed WP:SYN. Please do not remove the quotes by them. Andries 07:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I researched and wrote most of the content of the Sant Mat article, a fascinating subject indeed. That article stands by the sources I researched, and if you have any additional material that would be wonderful. But to imply that I edited the article to make a point, well... the material there is meticulously sourced and footnoted. Could it be that some people prefer to complain about the work of others and insist in discussing their opinions rather than endeavor in research and editing? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "it should be made clearer that even without the agency of students calling Rawat Lord etc. his words and those of his father completely suffice to explain why past students worshipped him as such and entertained many Hindu concepts". The whole raison d'etre of a guru is his devotee. Rawat told stories from the Bhagava Gita and poems from Kabir that expressed unbounded devotion to the guru. Rawat made it very clear that like Kabir, he bows to the guru not God. So it's hardly surprising that people in the west reflected this. Some of Rawat's student called him "Lord", some called him "Maharaji" but whatever the name, to have a guru and worship him was the happiest kingdom of them all.Momento 06:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The dispute about this entry will never stop as long as you try to push the here above described POV. Andries 09:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What entry? What dispute? What are you talking about?Momento 09:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about the set of entries related to Prem Rawat and the continous disputes about them, especially related to the claims of divinity. Andries 09:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The whole article is entirely full of entries related to Prem Rawat, which ones do you mean. And what is the dispute about divinity that you are refering to.Momento 10:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be my English. With "entry" I mean "lemma" i.e. Wikipedia article. Andries 10:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Half of this talk page is filled with disputes about claims of divinity and I have also posted on your talk page about it and you reacted to it. Did somebody else log in under Momento's name? Andries 10:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What's a"lemma"? And what do you mean about "somebody else log in under Momento's name"? You posted something about "divinty" twelve months ago, is that what you mean?Momento 10:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Lemma is an encyclopedia article such as this one. I found it so difficult to believe that you do not know or remember what I meant that I started to believe that somebody else logged in under your name. Andries 10:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Reinhart Hummel about the DLM 1980

From Indische Mission und neue Frömmigkeit im Westen. Religiöse Bewegungen in westlichen Kulturen Stuttgart 1980, ISBN 3170056093 page 79

German original:"In einem 1975 in Orlando/Florida, gehaltenen Satsang spricht er in eine ähnliche Sprache wie amerikanische Evangelisationsfeldzüge: >>The Lord himself reincarnates, reincarnates, reincarnates Himself for the very purpose of saving us. And we do not even realize who gave us the authority to refuse Him … Because we have got a stupid ego .. we have got our stupid mind ..<< >>Have we got a contract between us and God that He is not going to flood the world in 1975? … So when Lord comes to us, accept him. And Lord is here …. He might just decide not to go around and around looking for you. And if he does, you have had it. That’s it. It’s called >finito<…. So now is the chance.” ²³⁹

Das ist nicht die übliche Sprache hinduistischer Satsangs, sondern die Glaubensforderung eines Heilbringers, der sich als Wiederverkörperung des ewigen >>Guru Maharaj Ji<< versteht und mit Hilfe der biblischer Sintflutreminszenzen – wahrscheinlich aus seiner Schulzeit in der St. Joseph’s Academy in Dehra Dun – und amerikanischen Evangelisationsmethoden zur Entscheidung ruft."

English transl.:"In a Satsang in 1975 in Orlando/Florida, he speaks a similar language as American evangelization campaaigns: "The Lord himself reincarnates, reincarnates, reincarnates Himself for the very purpose of saving us. And we do not even realize who gave us the authority to refuse Him … Because we have got a stupid ego .. we have got our stupid mind ..<< >>Have we got a contract between us and God that He is not going to flood the world in 1975? … So when Lord comes to us, accept him. And Lord is here …. He might just decide not to go around and around looking for you. And if he does, you have had it. That’s it. It’s called finito. So now is the chance." ²³⁹

Thisis not the usual language of Hindu Satsangs, but the demand for faith by a bringer of salvation, who seems himself as the Reincarnation of the eternal "Guru Maharaj Ji" and with the help of biblical reminders of the great flood probably from his time as a student of the Saint Josheph academy in Dehra Dun and American Evangalization methods and who call for a decision."

Anmerkungen/Notes:

239 Premies Nr. 45 Dezember 1975 Seite 8

Andries 12:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hummel and Kranenborg both describe PR's speeches as being similar to eevangelization campaigns. Kraneborg's viewpoint we already have in the article (See section 1980), we could also cite Hummel if needed, but as both are making the same point we may not need to:

Kranenborg wrote in a 1982 article that "in Maharaj ji's satsangs one can notice a speaking style that resembles very much some Christian evangelization campaigns: a pressing request, an emphasis on the last possibility to choose before it is too late and a terminology in which one is requested to surrender to the Lord, in this case Maharaj ji himself."[61] While the American religious scholar J. Gordon Melton wrote in 1986 that, "[..]Maharaj Ji, as do many of the other Sant Mat leaders, claims to be a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God on earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration."[62]

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I expanded that section. with the source provided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, though I still had to check the translation for accuracy. Andries 20:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned when limited sections of non-English material are translated by editors. English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources provided they are otherwise of equal suitability, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Published translations are preferred to editors' translations; when editors use their own translations, the original-language material should be provided too, preferably in a footnote, so that readers can check the translation for themselves.I think Rumiton is a German speaker. Perhaps he can help.Momento 21:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that will be good. Also check the recent edit at Divine Light Mission. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course I cannot post more than limited sections otherwise I would break copyright. Andries 21:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a problem. But selecting only some sections to translate leaves editors open to suggestions of bias, undue weight and original research. That's why it is best to avoid foreign language sources when (in this case) there is so much scholastic material in English.Momento 21:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

We could get access to that source and check for that. Regardless of that, we should add some context on Hummel, in partiular that he was a theologian and leader of the Evangelische Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen (Evangelical Centre for Questions on World Views). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems quite irrelevant here, because the quoted work gave him the right to lecture at the university of of Heidelberg and probably had little to do with his work for the Evangelische Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen. Andries 04:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that bas we give context to other scholars here, we need to give context to Hummel as well. No harm in that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The most relevant context regarding the quoted book is that it yielded Hummel the right to lecture at the uni. Andries 16:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to leave you guys to it. I need to spend more time sourcing the proposal article. Whatever gets summarised here, I can ad to the bio/teaching section or the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Teachings which is the logical place for all of this.Momento 22:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Andries, could you put any scholarly material on Rawat into this talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Teachings

I'm trying to accumulate everything we have and then I'll put it into some sort of order.Momento 06:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The quoted article by Reinhart Hummel is not well translated, the word choice is poor and slanted, the last paragraph makes little sense. But the original isn't much better. I just spent an irritating half hour looking up German language writings by Hummel. He was an Evangelical pastor who took it upon himself to "explain" to his congregation every 1970s spiritual group that set up in Europe in what he saw as opposition to the Christian church. Tellingly, the only group I could find that earned his approval was that of Sai Baba, and I understand they have lately been thoroughly debunked. I also cannot agree with you, Andries, that the example given has nothing to do with his work as the leader of the Evangelische Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen. Hummel was a German who grew up in an age of euphemism, and Weltanschauungen (literally philosophies of life) is a euphemism for Eastern religions. The Evangelical German reader knows very well that Weltanschauungsfragen really means "The question of people who hold different views of life (from us.)" You are welcome to compare his use of Fragen with Heinrich Himmler's Die Judenfragen (the Jewish Question.)

A lot of people get invited to speak at Universities. I don't think that, outside of his own church, this guy has any relevance or credibility at all, and it would be a waste of time to give a better translation of his work here. Rumiton 12:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

He was not just invited to speak at the uni, but he lectured there, because of his research that yielded the quoted book. He is often cited by Dutch scholars. He was, at least in the quoted book, not a countercult writer. The quoted book is far above the threshold of a reliable source. Andries 16:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hummel's research reg. Sathya Sai Baba was excellent. Andries 16:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that anyone is asserting that he writes from the counter-cult viewpoint. Only that as the leader of an evangelical organization, he may have a certain perspective. There is no harm whatsoever in stating his background. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that "evangelical" is a good translation of the german word "Evangelisch". He became a leader of the EZW in 1981 after the quoted book was published in 1980. Andries 19:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the translation of Evangelisch? My dictionary says: evangelic -- evangelisch. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The proper translation of "evangelisch" should be "Protestant".--Rainer P. 20:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's face it. It's Hummel's words that some object to, then his credibility is attacked or he is rejected for writing in German. I'm not sure about that. If Hummel was praising Rawat he'd be in the article like a shot. Ron Geaves is oft quoted as a reliable source - and he's a current student. Is his credibility greater? Does his obvious bias even matter? Is context given about him? PatW 17:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with Hummel's material. As we are stating the Geaves is a student of PR for context, we need to describe Hummel's context as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, Momento. It's clear by what you wrote that you don't understand the definition of Wikipedia: Conflict of interest in Wikipedia, or in the real world at all, see Conflict of Interest. For purposes of the Prem Rawat article, as well as in academia, Geaves has a clear conflict of interest and a bias because he's a long-term student of Prem Rawat, and the subject of his scholarly paper cited here is his teacher/master/lord. He also didn't disclose that fact even to his academic peers, which calls his bias into question -- a lot! Therefore it must be mentioned that he's a long-term premie/student. Hummel isn't a student of the subject, which is Prem Rawat, so whether he's a Christian priest or a member of any other religion is immaterial. For instance, Gordon Melton is a Christian reverend and that's not mentioned in the article because it isn't material, there's no apparent bias, nor is there a conflict of interest. Melton is also a dracula buff, along with Massimo Introvigne, and I don't think that that information would be appropriate to mention either. To summarize: Geaves is a long-term student of the subject of this article, therefore he has a bias and a conflict of interest writing a scholarly article about Rawat so it must be mentioned. The other scholars are not long-term Rawat students, therefore, they have no particular conflict, and their bias isn't apparent or material to this article. Besides, we've had this discussion a long time ago, it was agreed that Geaves association with Rawat should be mentioned but not the religions other scholars. Doing that would be most inappropriate. Sylviecyn 23:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

SylvieCyn, please re-read what I wrote (the paragraph below). As we can all see, I didn't say anything about "Conflict of Interest" regarding Hummel or anyone else. In fact, I said "I don't have a problem with Hummel's German words". Nor did I suggest Hummel's religion should be mentioned and Geaves not. I said "A quoted person's religion is probably not a factor in most articles but when the quoted person is a paid, employee of an organisation critical of the subject, that context should be provided". COI is not just positively promoting your views, it is also denigrating your opposition.Momento 01:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Hummel's German words. I have a problem with how Andries translates them into English. Have a look at DLM talk where Andries replaces Hummel's clearly phrased "conceptual thinking" with "mind", as if they mean the same thing. And Hummel is not just a student of Christ, he's a fully fledged pastor unlike Greaves who is merely a student. A quoted person's religion is probably not a factor in most articles but when the quoted person is a paid, employee of an organisation critical of the subject, that context should be provided. And thought should be given to whether their bias makes their opinion suitable all. Certainly extreme or dismissive opinion should be avoided.Momento 20:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "conceptual thinking" and "mind" mean the same thing in the DLM according to Hummel. Nevertheless, I admit that I sh should have stated that they have the same meaning. Andries 19:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

And Hummel is not just a student of Christ, he's a fully fledged pastor unlike Greaves who is merely a student. Merely a student! How thinly disguised is your absurd under-emphasis! Very funny! Geaves is a fully-fledged religious professor, happily fluttering his little wings and using his new-found skills to serve his longtime Master. PatW 02:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And an update on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal .With "merciless editing" this "bloated" and "too long" article of 89 kilobytes has been reduced to 33 kilobytes. I have found most of the references and included some of the recent additions to this article in it. Please give it the once over and leave comments in the editors' section. I am still focused on producing a "Good Article" as per Vassanya's helpful advice. Aiming for the end of the month.Momento 21:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And what do you do for a proper job? Just curious since this seems a full-time commitment.PatW 21:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hummel (continuation)

Why are we keep discussing Hummel? We are citing him in the article alongside other theologians and scholars, and we are providing context for these scholars by describing their allegiances. Let's keep it at that and move one, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine, Jossi, as long as the organisation he led and that paid him is adequately described for the reader. Even though Hummel's expressed views seem quite bland and uncontroversial, I don't feel he has intellectual credibility. It's like asking Billy Graham for his opinion on Islam. Or asking George Bush any hard question. (Off topic. Yes.) Rumiton 10:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. We should not be assessing bias or lack of bias of scholars. Let's provide the information, alongside the scholar allegiances and that would be fine. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that Rumiton's highly misguided comments show the real problem with using non-English sources i.e. that assessing their reliability is very difficult for non-English speakers. Again, the quoted 1980 book was Hummel's research commission by the Heidelberg uni which gave him the right to lecture there. It was not financed by the EZW of which Hummel only became its leader in 1981. His opposition against the German word "sekte" and "Jugendreligion"/youth religion strongly indicates that he was neither a counter cult activist but that he had anti-anti-cult views. Andries 19:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hummel was a Lutheran pastor at the time of writing and that should be sufficient.We don't have the space to give his other positions. Be aware that Vassanya's GA recommendations are for a much smaller article as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal Perhaps time would be better spent looking at that article.Momento 21:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The proposal at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal is looking very good. With "merciless editing" this "bloated" and "too long" article of 89 kilobytes has been reduced to 33 kilobytes as per Vassanya's helpful advice. Aiming for the end of the month. Please give opinions in editor's section.Momento 23:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Current state of things

Sorry I have been gone so long. My motherboard decided to breathe its last. I acquired a new one and went from dial up to broadband, so I should be around often again. :) What's the current state of things? Vassyana 01:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal We're trying to keep to a 2400 word count to ensure that the new article doesn't become bloated and encouraging editors to consider what should be removed to make way for more material rather than just adding material at whim. The exercise in brevity seems to be producing a concise, factual article without too much waffle. It also has the advantage of keeping the same "tone" throughout which imnproves readability. Welcome backMomento 02:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

From my perspective, (and not wanting to divert the effort from the discussion about content, as per above comment by Momento) what is needed is that these editors that have not agreed to the ground rules you proposed, do so. I have expanded these ground rules to be more stringent, given the circumstances, so that we can have safe and civil environment to pursue the bettering of the article . See Talk:Prem_Rawat#Truce_2. Editors that have yet to agree are user:Rumiton, user:Sylviecyn, and user:PatW. Sylviecyn and PatW have questions for you that they have not expressed. Your help with this would be appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Vassayana, have you stopped to consider what it's like for us, who are a minority on one side of the argument, being faced with a concensus of staunch followers of Prem Rawat who propose further stringent rules for this article !? Worse, can you imagine what it's like that these opponents have their own Prem Rawat follower who is a Wiki-administrator acting as some kind of permanent vigilante, policing us and warning us to an extremely irritating degree? Have you considered that Vassayana? Is it any wonder that we are suspicious of their motives? As far as we're concerned Jossi is far too quick to use his administrative powers to accuse people who are not followers, and yet reluctant to 'warn' followers. That's simply not news. It is simply a historic criticism of him here. The followers backing this more stringent rule idea simply want to use this against us. Why should I or anyone agree to that? It's just setting ourselved up for more hassle. Besides, we are under no obligations to agree to anything of the sort as far as I can see.PatW 20:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree to Vassyana's Truce proposal. Rumiton 11:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So what? Exactly what will that change? Nothing.PatW 20:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I appreciate that this truce proposal had some initial good intent it seems to have become a rather childish distraction. As you may know I consider that any person who comes here, like Vassayana, to enjoin or comment (however authoritative or impartial they may be) has some obligation to actually read and comment on the arguments first. I felt that to just say we have to 'agree to make up' and 'forget the past' is condescending. I have made some considerable efforts to argue, mainly with Momento, about the use of quotes such as the Collier material. During these arguments there has been quite a lot of frustration and some rudeness but to focus just on that and ignore the substance is simply flippant. Vassayana please read this thread above 'Invitation for comment on a discussion which pertains to this article' if you want to get the gist of the argument between Momento and myself and Sylviecyn. The argument continued on my talk page. I would recommend reading this argument about the most honest use of quotes. You may have noticed that only Rawat's supporters have agreed with your truce so far. You might want to think about why that is the case. The answer will become clear if you take the time to read the arguments and frankly not otherwise.PatW 11:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice to know I'm still wanted around the place. :P I hope everyone has been well. Sylvie, Pat, what concerns and questions do you have? Vassyana 11:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Vassyana. I'm glad you're back. I don't like the truce (or even the idea of it) and don't plan to sign it. I think that the Wikipedia rules, guidelines, and policies all serve any of the needs of the current editors, including arguments between editors, etc. The only situation under which I would consider signing such a stringent set of rules would be if someone, such as yourself, is the only person to administer them when disputes arise -- not any of us current editors. I believe that is a fair condition, albeit not so feasible. I think your time would be better apent assessing the article itself, rather than managing editors' behavior. The dispute between Momento and PatW that precipitated the truce wasn't dealt with fairly, imo, and I'd like to see more flexibility by the adherent's side when anyone besides adherents do any editing, especially on the draft. The Collier quote is a good example of too much rigidity, but even when Patw, Momento, and I had a discussion about it on Pat's user talk page, not much was accomplished in the way of coming to a concensus. I don't think the truce would remedy that. Thanks. Sylviecyn 21:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the acceptance of the ground rules is imperative. I do not see the reasons to disagree with these, and I do not know why Rumiton, Momento and myself have accepted them, and PatW and Sylvie have not. Hope this can be clarified with Vassyana's help, and the ground rules accepted by all so that we can leave that behind and concentrate in working on the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Vassayana, my concern is that quotes about Rawat's denials of 'divinity' are being dishonestly used especially as per within Momento's 'proposed article' (which I assume you have seen). I would be most grateful if you would please very carefully read my entire argument with Momento on this subject and add some comment from your perspective. Here is the link to our discussion which I trust you will find enlightening:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PatW#Arguments_about_most_honest_use_of_quotes_to_describe_views_about_Rawat.27s_perceived_Divinity
As you will see, I confront Momento on what I and many others have objected to and which I felt he had not yet properly discussed, ie this:
The article seems to be contrived to give the overall impression that Rawat was not responsible for encouraging followers to worship him as divine and that others (ie Mahatmas, his family, followers) were more or less entirely responsible for that. Of course the latter played a part, but it's not really clear from the quotes selected how much Rawat (Maharaji) himself believed it himself or encouraged it. That is deliberately played down in my opinion and many people think it's unneccessary and dishonest. Vassayana it is a very important point to a lot of people who feel this article is becoming just an extension of an existing PR campaign to draw attention away from Rawat's responsibility for encouraging followers to believe he was Divine.PatW 19:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with PatW that quoting Collier very selectively is not fair and there is nothing in Wikipedia policies that supports this. Andries 19:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

(If that is your viewpoint, Andries, why did you selectively quoted Hummel? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC))

I quoted from Hummel what I believed what was important. I did not revert more quoting of Hummel that others considered important. In contrast, Momemento reverted more quotes of Collier that PatW considered important. Andries 21:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If I had not been selective in quoting/summarizing Hummel then this entry and the entry Divine Light Mission would both have become very bloated and verbose. Andries 22:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of any such removal from this article. Care to point it out? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not in this entry, but in the bio-proposal. Momento reverted PatW's edit back to selective quoting of Collier in the Bio-Proposal [1][2]Andries 22:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Bio Proposal" is a sandbox, and not this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It will remain a sandbox forever if PatW's and my concerns that I expressed here are not taken into account. Andries 22:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That is why we have a disinterested party here (Vassyana) that can provide objective feedback to the proposal that Momento, Rumiton and Slivync are working on. Momento is attempting to address the concerns raised in the GA review, and not your concerns. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The bio proposal is until now a flawed attempt to make the article GA status. The bio proposal is far worse than this entry. Andries 22:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be flawed, but it is an honest attempt by those editing that proposal, to address to the points raised by the reviewer. Hence, my interests in the reviewer's comments. Hopefully Vassyana will oblige and do a review of the bio proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

When citing, best is to stay close to the source, and provide context if necessary. If there is selective quoting going on, that can be adressed on specific edits (as an example, see the discussion at Talk:Divine Light Mission, in which we are discussing Hummel.) As per Pat's accusations of vigilantism, I would argue that these are unfounded. I have welcomed each and every user that wanted to edit constructively, and I have wared editors both pro and con, when I saw it necessary. It is all in my edit history for anyone that wants to check this. There is also no base to Pat's argument that he is in a "minority". As far as I can see each editor is very much his/her own person, and there are discrepancy of opinions within each camp. Lastly, and for the nth time, I am not contributing to this article as an a administrator, but as an editor, and I have never used my admin privileges for anything related to this article. I voice my discontent, yet again, at editors that rather than engage constructively, chose to continue with baseless accusations and disregard a request by a disinterested party to abide by basic rules of civility, extended to encompass past behaviors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana, I'd like to give one specific example that illustrates a typical problem with this article: Rawat had told his followers (in a personal letter addressed to all premies and published in the Divine Times, Special Millenium '73 Edition, p2) that the Millennium '73 festival at the Houston Astrodome was to be "the most holy and significant event in human history". The book "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?" (launched at the same time - Nov '73 - by Bantam Press) asked, on its back cover: "Why do more than six million people around the world claim he is the greatest incarnation of God that ever trod the face of this planet?"

However, in the Wiki article, Rawat's claims to divinity such as these (which he himself actively promoted at that time) are dismissed with the words "During these years, claims of divinity made by the Indian mahatmas, his family, and some followers were reported by the media. Rawat denied these claims in several interviews given to the press and on television ..."

Such blatant revisionism continues - though often challenged by the efforts of a few who still care about the accurate portrayal of historical events. Their efforts, however, are being undermined by a few current followers of Rawat who appear to be exercising a wholly disproportionate influence over the balance of the article, which is, I have to say, actively damaging Wikipedia's credibility. Revera 21:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting your sudden interest on Wikipedia's credibility, nevertheless, as for your assertions above, these are substantiated by the secondary sources that were used in the article. Efforts are being made by involved editors, to add new sources and make this article better. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Also note that there are other sources that describe divinity aspects in the article, such as Hummel, Van der Lans, Kraneborg, Melton, Dowton and others. Maybe you missed reading these? (see Prem_Rawat#The_1980s_and_1990s ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hummel also treats the Peace Bomb Satsang more extensively. The current version states that the Peace Bomb Satsang is very important but omits to state what Rawat said or link to it which is uninformative. Andries 22:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The point you conveniently manage to avoid, Jossi, is this - that transcripts of what Rawat said to his own followers during that decade (and it's the 1970s I'm referring to), reveal that, for all his denials to the press, the message he was giving to his followers at that time was - shall we say - a horse of a very different colour.

While it may be true that, on the rare occasions when he talked to the press, Rawat did indeed play down - even sometimes deny - his claims to divinity, it was a very different scenario when he was addressing his premies - or students as they are called nowadays. The whole weight of his 'mission' was designed to associate himself, his so-called "Holy Family", and the meditation techniques with the divine. He described himself as the "Spiritual Head of Divine Light Mission" for God's sake!

The paragraph on the 1970s in the article really should reflect this, and not just the disinformational denials he fed the press.

Incidentally, the references to Hummel, Van der Lans, Kranenborg, Melton, Downton that you mention do very little to explain WHY he was thought of as divine by his followers, and that needs addressing. To avoid doing so does Wikipedia a disservice (and Wiki's credibility - and lack of it - should concern all of us who use and contribute to it). Revera 21:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The "why" can only be described by reporting what reliable sources said about it. Downton, for example, addresses this quite eloquently. You may want to read WP:SYN, that explain the subject why articles cannot include editor's opinions, interpretations, an/or syntheses of primary sources that have not been published as such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I never seen an address by PR in which he referred to his family as the "Holy family". From what I have read, I gather that that was very much something her mother and the elder brother were into. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with understanding the word "divine". "Divine" means "of, from or like God", not God itself. Rawat has made it clear that he believes God is "pure and perfect energy" and that no human can be God. He has also made it clear that God resides in the heart of every human being and that every human being can enjoy that "Divine" experience. When Rawat came to the west, he presented Knowledge in "Divine" terms with divine analogies from divine books. Knowledge was "Knowledge of God", technique one was "Divine Light", Elan Vital was DLM. He was, after all, an Indian Guru. But as time passed he became more secular and in the '80s he dropped the "divine" connection entirely and presented Knowldge in non-divine terms. The "Guru" became a "teacher", "God" became "peace" etc. He has never denied being "divine", he did deny some of the claims made about him, he always denied being God and he encouraged his followers to see themselves as divine.Momento 21:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

:::"There has never been a time when the Lord of Creation did not manifest Himself in human form, and come to this planet Earth to do away with evil and spread the True Knowledge."

Leaving aside the "chicken and egg" limitations of this concept, it is tempting to interpret "manifest himself in human form" and "come to this planet Earth" as being "divinely born". But the above comment must apply to Rawat's father (and the Gurus who preceeded him), a man who slept on railway platforms and didn't become a Guru until he was 36. So the Lord of Creation is not being "born" onto Planet Earth. Rather the Lord of Creation manifests in a previously ordinary human who is then inspired to "do away with evil and spread the True Knowledge". It is therefore a consequence of understanding or revelation not birth. So, more prosaically, Rawat is saying - for all practical purposes there is never a time when God doesn't inspire some person to spread this Knowledge. A fair conclusion considering the workings of Guru succession.Momento 03:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think these are telling and important points. I would love to see this article keep everyone more or less happy, I don't think more is achievable, but we keep on stumbling over semantics. Given the glare of enough attention, ALL words turn toxic or meaningless. But with a few moments sincere contemplation, I feel the above comment cuts through the hard stuff better than anything else I have seen hereabouts. Rumiton 11:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on Momento and Rumiton! You've gotta be joking. Tell me you're making a joke. These last two posts of yours are obvious attempts at apologism and illogical rationalization. Rawat's words have to be taken at face value, don't need interpretation, and the fact is that he claimed divinity all of the time to followers while he denied it to the press. This has been going on since Rawat began his career as a guru. Then sometime in the 70s, he stopped talking to the press completely, while he emphasized even more to premies just how much greater than God he considered himself to be, and how much dust we premies were under his lotus feet. This took place in the U.S., not India. I've shown before that in the Wood Boston Globe article that when asked by Wood, Rawat denied he is "God," but then also compared himself to Jesus Christ by saying that he reveals the same Knowledge that Jesus revealed (as explained in the Bible). And Rawat was not confused about the divinity status of Jesus because he went to a Catholic school. He was talking to a Boston, Mass. journalist whose audience was American people. That's proof positive of the fact that Rawat considers(ed) himself at the very least, the same as Jesus Christ, who is believed predominately by Christians to be the messiah. That's divinity by any definition of the word (and Momento, you're even cherry-picking the definition of divinity). Read the following and then try to tell me with a straight face that Rawat was only talking about his father, his Guru Maharaj Ji The following quote is from Who is Guru Maharaj Ji, btw, a widely published book. You can claim Rawat's denial of divinity until the cows come home and beyond, but the fact of his own published statements dispute your arguments. Momento's continuous assertions that Rawat was referring to his father are implausible and false, based on Rawat's own doctrine that one needs a living master to receive Knowledge.

"Who is Guru? The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here, to whom will you give your devotion? Guru Maharaj Ji knows all. Guru Maharaji is Brahma (creator). Guru Maharaji is Vishnu (Operator). Guru Maharjai is Shiva (Destroyer of illusion and ego). And above all, Guru Mahraji is the Supremest Lord in person before us. I have come so powerful. I have come for the world. Whenever the great come,the worldly oppose them. Again I have come and you are not listening. Every ear should hear that the saviour of humanity has come. There should be no chance for anyone to say that they haven't heard of Guru Maharaj Ji. Those who have come to me are already saved. Now its your duty to save others. Shout it on the streets. Why be shy? When human beings forget the religion of humanity, the Supreme Lord incarnates. He takes a body and comes on this earth ...... When human beings forget this one way, then our Lord, who is the Lord of the whole universe, comes in human body to give us practical Knowlege, ....But, most ironically, we don't appreciate the Lord when He comes in His human body on this earth. Similarly, a Satguru, a Perfect Master, a Supreme Lord who is existing in the present time, can give you the practical Knowledge of the real thing... So God Himself comes to give practical Knowledge of His divinity, of His inner self, which is self-effulgent light, eternal light, all-pervading light. And the Supreme Master, the Satguru, gives practical Knowledge of that light, irrespective of caste, creed, color, religion or sex, to those human individuals who bow before him with reverence, with love and with faith. Excerpts from Who is Guru Maharaj Ji? First paragraph Prem Rawat, second section following words "Why be shy?" Mataji. All pending verificiation. Do not edit this post again!!! Sylviecyn 13:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that the above quote is most likely by Rawat, given the speaker talks in the first person. I'm looking to verify this. Daniella offers no positive proof of her dispute of the quote source. Sylviecyn 22:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

She does. ( "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?" page 294 to 298). Satsang by Mataji, Newchatel Switzerland March 1972. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That quote is an excellent example of a pamphlet trying to assert a certain point of view by mis-attributing and mixing quotes from different protagonists. There are several quotes intermixed. According to Daniella, a large portion of it is from Mataji's satsang in these pages, and I have verified these pages: is the last four pages of that book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not a quote by Rawat. The text in bold was spoken by Mata Ji (WIGM page 294-6) the other part appears to be an amalgamation of bits from various satsangs, possibly 1966 at father's funeral.Momento 22:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The quote is not from Prem Rawat, but from his mother Mata Ji and others. She was probably paraphrasing a commonly used theme in India, for example, Adi Shankara, widely considered one of the most important figures of Indian intellectual history, begins his Gurustotram or Verses to the Guru with the following Sanskrit Sloka, that is a widely sung Bhajan:

Guru Brahma Guru Vishnu Guru Devo Maheshwara
Guru Sakshath Parambrahma Tasmai Shri Gurave Namaha
Guru is creator Brahma; Guru is preserver Vishnu; Guru is also the destroyer Siva and he is the source of the Absolute. I offer all my salutations to the Guru.

The misattribution of that quote to Prem Rawat by critics was discovered by an editor named Daniella last year. See this:

You have been mislead. Maharaji did not wrote the above, as you say... This is a good example of the strenuous efforts made by the publisher of that website to attempt to prove that point. What you quote above is not one continuous excerpt from Prem Rawat from that book, but a potpourri of quotes strung together, some of which are not from Prem Rawat at all. Some portions are from a sat-sang by his mother, some others by the editor of the book, some others from Brahmananda, and some others by Prem Rawat.

So, please let us leave these fascinating discussions for our blogs and forums, and concentrate here in working on the articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Daniella's interpretation is interesting. She is perplexed by Rawat's own frequent contradictions about himself (something I've demonstrated before somewhere around here). But, I can tentatively concede that the second half of the excerpt is Mataji's (all words after "why be shy?), but clearly the first part had to be Rawat because he speaks in the first person about GMJ, and clearly not about Shri Maharaji. Btw, John Brauns has consistently asked for anyone to make corrections to EPO, so Daniella's claims of ex-premies misleading people is really naive, without basis, and quite arrogant. In fairness, the attribution of those quotes do say "except," not "GMJ" on the EPO page. But, I'll ask for that to be clarified. Doesn't make much difference considering that Mataji was his own mother, kissing his feet and promoting him as the Supreme Lord of the Universe! That quote obviously was before the family split. However I took your sarcastic advice Jossi and asked on the forum and some folks are going to try to verify who said what in the above quote. So it remains pending verification. Do not revert it again!!!!!! :( Sylviecyn 13:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Momento you say "It's tempting to interpret..etc." as if your personal interpretation is somehow definitive or more sensible. ie as if there actually exists some real meaning in that statement which is relevant to the real world. You don't seem to included the obvious possibility that a) Rawat didn't know what he was talking about and was just parrotting some doctrine he'd heard and believed at that time. b) he actually meant what he said about being born to the task. Anyway, since you're understanding of Rawat's meaning is apparently so incisive, perhaps you'd like to share your interpretation this quote too:

I have come so powerful. I have come for the world. Whenever the great come, the worldly oppose them. Again I have come and you are not listening. Every ear should hear that the saviour of humanity has come. There should be no chance for anyone to say that they haven't heard of Guru Maharaj Ji. Those who have come to me are already saved. Now its your duty to save others. Shout it on the streets. Why be shy? When human beings forget the religion of humanity, the Supreme Lord incarnates. He takes a body and comes on this earth ....

Here Rawat talks about the Supreme Lord taking a body and coming on this earth. Why should anyone hearing this (in context) reach your conclusion that he meant "the Lord of Creation is not being "born" onto Planet Earth"? Sure anyone who takes a look at the prosaic working of Guru Succession can see that there are loads of inconsistencies and contradictions. The point is that when Rawat said these things he was not familiar with the prosaic workings of Guru succession. Far from it, he was caught up in the belief system and actually belived this stuff. The fact that he was so young and impressionable at the time makes all this so much more blatantly obvious. I don't agree with Ruminton that your comment cuts through anything. All you are doing is tring to superimpose your take on what Rawat should have said 'more prosaically' . In short you're putting your words into Rawat's mouth as usual.PatW 14:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You may have missed by previous comment, that quote is not Rawat's but a collection of quotes strung together by critics in an attempt top prove their point. Please read the analysis of that potpourri of quotes made by Daniella, here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Then we need to separate the different quotes, attribute them to their individual authors, and address each quotation on its own merits, rather than dismiss them all. Any objection?

In the meantime, I have a question to ask all contributors here. In the 'Special Millennium Program' edition of the magazine called 'And It Is Divine', November 1973, the preface, written by Maharaj Ji and signed by him as "Sant Ji Maharaj" has the following:

"There has never been a time when the Lord of Creation did not manifest Himself in human form, and come to this planet Earth to do away with evil and spread the True Knowledge".

This was in 1973, seven years after his father had died. Do you think that he was speaking about himself? If not, then ... who?

Momento thinks the quote "...must apply to Rawat's father (and the Gurus who preceeded him)". How strange to suggest it stopped there. Rawat WAS speaking about himself - the successor to the lineage of the "Perfect Master", wasn't he?

Revera 20:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You missed the point Revera. I didn't suggest that Rawat wasn't talking about himself, I was making it clear that he wasn't saying he, his father or previous gurus were "born divine" as PatW incorrectly asserts.User:Momento|Momento]] 20:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And I can confirm that the long quote SylvieCyn attributes to Rawat is a forgery posted on the anti-Rawat site.Momento 21:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You didn't suggest it? Oh really? You said the quote "must apply to Rawat's father and the gurus who preceded him" Why leave out the living 'Lord of Creation' as he liked to refer to himself? Really, Momento, your ... deviousness (if that's the wrong word, I'd like to know what a more accurate one is) speaks volumes.

Revera 21:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Rawat's quote makes it obvious that he was refering to himself but I was reminding readers that his quote must also apply to his father and preceeding Gurus. And using his father as an example, the Lord of Creation didn't manifest in Shri Hans until he was 36, so contrary to PatW's assertion and many others, Rawat is not saying he or his father were born divine. PS Just Gooogled "Lord of Creation", didn't find any references to Rawat calling himself that. Good bye.Momento 21:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A few paragraphs above, Jossi admits that he's never heard Rawat refer to his family members as the "Holy Family". OK, as an admission it goes so far - but should Wikipedia's readers take Jossi's ignorance as a definitive statement of denial that Rawat ever did this? I don't think so.

Here's a link to picture of the so-called "Holy Family" published in the Special Millennium edition of the magazine "And It Is Divine" - http://gurumaharaji.info/pages/and_it_is_divine/millennium/thumbs/page26_Holy_Family_photo.shtml How did that picture, and the description accompanying it get there? Why not ask the "Editor in Chief" - http://gurumaharaji.info/pages/and_it_is_divine/millennium/thumbs/page03_Invitation.shtml

Who he? Guess. Revera 21:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, sure. Dismissing the misleading quotation does not serve you well. Mata Ji and elder brother were the ones that referred to themselves as "holy family". PR did not. I remember a quote of Mataji in which she claimed to be the "holy mother". As for your attribution of that to PR because it was published by the DLM in 1973, it is just your opinion and not a fact. I would encourage all editors to stop with the speculative comments and discussions on this page. This is not a discussion forum. If you have something you want to discuss about the article, please do so. Otherwise take these discussions to your personal take pages, or better, off-wiki. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, you say "Dismissing the misleading quotation does not serve you well." Please explain which quotation you're referring to, and what on earth you mean.

As for the magazine "And it it Divine" being published by DLM, - well, actually it was published by Shri Hans Productions, although the copyright was held by Divine Light Mission - but that diminishes my point not one jot. Its EDITOR-IN-CHIEF was RAWAT/Maharaj for crying out loud! As such, he takes ultimate responsibility for publishing the picture of his familiy with the description "The Holy Family" beneath it.

This is not mere speculation. It is FACT! As is the fact that the same magazine - HIS magazine - quoted him as saying the following:

"The great leaders think that I have come to rule and yes, they are right! I will rule the world, and just watch how I will do it! Even the lion and sheep will embrace each other. Has there been such a king before? Krishna was not such a king. Rama also was not such a king. There were lesser powers in Ram, there were lesser powers in Krishna, but I have come to the world with full powers. Accept my words, accept me. I will give you Knowledge. If you mistake my meaning, if you mistake a single word of what I am saying, I will not forgive you". Guru Maharaj Ji, excerpt from "The Peace Bomb" satsang held at India Gate, Delhi, November 8 1970 and printed in the magazine "And It Is Divine", Volume 1 Issue 10 p.17, August 1973.

Link to scan here: http://gurumaharaji.info/pages/golden_age/number_49/thumbs/page17_maharaji_peace_bomb.shtml

Revera 11:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Daniella's Deconstruction

This was Daniella's analysis of that and other "quotes": Diff [3]. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It's really a good thing that Daniella found the discrepency of the two quotes that are posted on EPO, because now they can be corrected and clarified, but that doesn't prove anything for anyone wanting to assert that Rawat never made claims of divinity. The fact is that he did it all of the time. On the EPO Who is Guru Maharaj Ji page it says "excerpt," and doesn't attribute the quotes specifically. I'll ask for that to be clarified. On the Gallery page of EPO, the satsangs are set forth more clearly, and the second part of the quote (bolded above) is definitely Mataji. The first part is Maharaji. But I don't take the word of an anonymous wiki editor like Daniella who states exes are misleading people. What's her agenda or authority to be making an assertion like that? Who the heck is she? She doesn't know what she's talking about obviously, yet freely spews her uninformed opinion which you attached yourself to, Jossi, and you seem so eager to repeat "misleading" over and over. Throughout the history of the EPO website, the webmasters have asked premies (or anyone) over and over again to correct any mistakes, errors, or omissions that they might find. This was usually done in response to unfounded criticism by premies on the various fora. No one has made an attempt to do that, but they sure are fond of dishing out libel about us exes without any foundation. A mistake or error is not deliberate attempt to mislead, which is Daniella's accusation that I obviously reject. So I kindly ask you to refrain from repeating falsehoods about me and other ex-premies here, or I'll start editing your posts that disparage my character by association. Have a good day. Sylviecyn 13:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

(a) I have not disparaged any editor. If I have, show me where. (b) We do not ask "who the heck are you" to fellow editors, we look at their comments at face value; (b) if you have anything to say to that editor, say it in that editors' page; (c) The analysis by Daniella is excellent in my opinion and very accurate as well, and far from a "falsehood". She uncovered a mistake that was being perpetuated regardless of if it was deliberately or not, and a good example of that was your posting. You were mislead by these quotes and you attributed them to PR based on mistaken information found on a critic's site. Her analysis of the peace bomb satsang is excellent as well. I have being studying textual criticism (an article I took to GA status, now working on Feature Article status) and applied that science to the analysis of early satsangs that were translated from Hindi, and I concur with her analysis (and have some more theories that I will not bore you with). So accept that you were mislead and move on, OK? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You could be shown word for word, a personal attack, innuendo, and sarcasm and you'd come back and deny it. You do that all the time and it's so disrepectful. Some good faith! Sure, I can move on to including a quote in the article to show that Rawat indeed made blantant claims of his own divinity in a published book, WIGMJ? and other DLM publications printed and sold, in English, in the United States, in other words, the west. All of the time. Even as recently as the 90s. I don't need to use a Hindi-to-English quote, although that was DLM promoted during the time Rawat was editor-in-chief, and the legal minister of DLM. I disagree about your assessment of Daniella's interpretation of Rawat's satsangs. I agree that they fit into your need for revisionism of Prem Rawat's life quite well enough, no doubt about that, but that's about all. Concerning my being misled, I also disagree. No one lead me anywhere at all. I'm quite happy that particular excerpt got straightened out. But, a mistake is far different than someone misleading someone which implies intent. That's the insult you fail to see you and Daniella make about ex-premies, and you and other premies here make these kinds of postings all of the time, and manage to get away with it as if you have some special privileges. That's the problem with the main thrust of this article, actually -- Prem Rawat ever accepts responsibility for his mistakes and neither do his adherents and you spin on and on and on. Funny, that.Sylviecyn 18:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Look: you were the one that posted a comment here stating that these were PR's words, not me. I just went back and found a comment by an other editor that analyzed that and other quotes in a scholarly manner, and linked to it for everybody's benefit,. The fact that you do not like that analysis does not mean that (a) it is incorrect; and (b) that it is a personal attack on an editor here. I would appreciate it, if you stop making baseless accusations of personal attacks, when there are none. This is not the first time you have made these claims, and it is becoming disruptive. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, if someone tells you that you're offending them, it's only respectful to at least listen. Nevermind. I found out the first part of the quote is from page 13 of WIGMJ and by Rawat. It's published material, so it can go in. Apparently, it's there's a section in book that puts the two quotes together in a montage of quotes on the pages Daniella looked at, but on page 13, it's clear it's Rawat. Who is Guru? The highest manifestation of God is Guru. So when Guru is here, God is here, to whom will you give your devotion? Guru Maharaj Ji knows all. Guru Maharaji is Brahma (creator). Guru Maharaji is Vishnu (Operator). Guru Maharjai is Shiva (Destroyer of illusion and ego). And above all, Guru Mahraji is the Supremest Lord in person before us. I have come so powerful. I have come for the world. Whenever the great come,the worldly oppose them. Again I have come and you are not listening. Every ear should hear that the saviour of humanity has come. There should be no chance for anyone to say that they haven't heard of Guru Maharaj Ji. Those who have come to me are already saved. Now its your duty to save others. Shout it on the streets. Why be shy? I have come so powerful. I have come for the world. Whenever the great come,the worldly oppose them. Again I have come and you are not listening. Every ear should hear that the saviour of humanity has come. There should be no chance for anyone to say that they haven't heard of Guru Maharaj Ji. Those who have come to me are already saved. Now its your duty to save others. Shout it on the streets. Why be shy?" Prem Rawat, Who is Guru Maharaj Ji? Sylviecyn 23:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Page 13 contains also this quote: I have not come to establish a new religion. I have come to reveal the truth, knowing which will set you free. If you come to me with a guileless heart and sincere desire, I will give you eternal peace. Then there are some selected excerpts of the peacebomb satsang. As said before, we can get into "quote war" and end nowehere. There is also this quote from that satsang: "What can I say about Guru Maharaj Ji who has sent me amongst you and has given me this chance to serve you? The name of such a merciful Guru Maharaj Ji is Shri Hans Ji Maharaj. How shall I sing of Him? How shall I express the love He has for you? He has deep love for humanity. I cannot express the great love He has for you. I do not have sufficient words to express how much Guru Maharaj Ji loves you." [...] I only need the opportunity. If I have the time, dear premies, what will I not do! I have so much faith in Guru Maharaj Ji and I pray to Him, "O Guru Maharaj Ji! Increase my faith twofold; and increase it threefold in those who do not love you. Increase it for them fivefold so that they too are blessed.

In addition, there are at least two or three versions of that satsang published, as per Daniella's research, such as Now Guru Maharaj Ji has come. Whenever He came before, you did not accept Him. Now I have come again to reveal the Knowledge, and still you do not understand me. Why don't you realize? . Given all these discrepancies in translation, it is more appropriate to cite secondary sources rather than primary sources in this regard. (Please use italics to for cited text, thanks.) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

What "discrepancies in translation" are you referring to? And where's your evidence? What's more, the quotes were published in a secondary source - "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?", edited by Charles Cameron. published by Bantam. And I don't think your suggestion of discounting any primary source simply because it's been translated from Hindi is one that should be automatically taken as policy. ::::Revera 11:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As explained above, Daniella found that somebody "tweaked" the translation to say "saviour of humanity has come" instead of "Guru Mahara Ji has come". The latter was on a version published in 1972 and the former on Cameron's book. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You may not like the translation Jossi, but it was published in the magazine "And it is Divine" Volume 1 Issue 10, August 1973 - two months before Charles Cameron's book hit the shelves. Since he goes on to talk about how people are 'saved' by him, your quibble about the translation means very little - other than you don't like the implications of what Maharaji allowed his own organisation to attribute to him back then. Nonetheless it WAS proclaimed - IN HIS NAME.

http://gurumaharaji.info/pages/golden_age/number_49/thumbs/page15_maharaji_peace_bomb.shtml

Revera 18:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

... that is your unsubstantiated personal opinion'. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Vassayana ever going to address our questions?

For weeks now we have been asking Vassayana to address specific concerns and it seems that he may not have time to answer or is unable due to technical difficulties. The problem is that these questions rapidly get buried by further discussion, we repeat them and they get buried again etc. It's becoming quite tiresome for me now. Should we invite other people...if so how? And what should their qualifications be, to have their opinions respected as apparently Vassayana's are? Is it just that they should be impartial and a Wikipedia administrator or what? Is there some sort of official mediatator we can call upon?PatW 07:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Vassayana is back since a coup,e of days ago, and left you messages in your talk page. The review of the bio proposal Vassayana submitted yesterday is here. Vassayana is acting as an informal mediator, and I understand that this has been accepeted de facto by participants, and respected in that capacity for his disinterested and objective evaluation of articles and proposals. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As for "official" mediation, I would argue that we are quite well good with Vassyana's help. For more information about WP's dispute resolution process beyond informal mediation (which is part of the dispute resolution process), see WP:DR.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Prem Rawat/Bio proposal - New Edits- Vassayana please comment

Hi, regarding this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal
(please see edit history - 27 April 2007 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal&diff=126346446&oldid=126272899)
I have today removed the phrase that stressed that Rawat 'let others cast him in the role of the Lord' without mentioning his own claims of Divinity. I also added the second part of the Collier quote which Momento omitted and which created unbalance. That is:
Addressing several hundred thousand ecstatic Indian devotees, prepared for his message by a four-thousand-year cultural tradition, he declares, 'I am the source of peace in this world . . . surrender the reins of your life unto me and I will give you salvation.' On national television in the United States he says sheepishly, with his hands folded in his lap, 'I am just a humble servant of God.'
I hope you agree with my editorial decision. Momento has threatened on my Talk Page to revert such an edit. I think that the Collier full quote makes both the crucial points that a) Rawat 'let others cast him in the role of the Lord' and importantly that b) he also was personally responsible for that perception. The latter is the contentious point that was conspicuously missing in many people's opinion. Can you help us settle this once and for all? What do you think? Is it not fair to make both these points quite clear? Is it not undesirable to omit the information that Rawat spoke of himself publicly as 'the source of peace in this world' and as one who could offer 'Salvation'? PatW 08:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Quote wars will get us nowhere. And quotes need to be summarized. So rather than editwar about that in the proposal, you can find a way to summarize Collier's statement into one sentence, without adding "slants" to it. Vassyana surely can provide some help on that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Too late. Momento already reverted my edit to his paraphrase 'let others cast him in the role of the Lord' . So since Momento wants us to carefully preserve the original meaning of quotes in our paraphrasing, I have added Rawat's significant Peace Bomb Satsang words as Collier uses, to reflect her original meaning. (ie. that Rawat was indeed responsible in part, for the perception of him as a Messianic figure.) So this is my edit:

Rawat was said to "generally encourage whatever view is held by the people he is with" whilst some of his public declarations such as "I am the source of peace in this world...surrender the reins of your life unto me and I will give you salvation." inspired people to see him in a Messianic role.

Now if I were to follow Jossi's idea to summarise this, I would say something like:

Rawat's views about himself were open to interpretation. Whilst he generally encouraged whatever views people held around him, the tone of his speeches inspired many to see him in a Messianic role.
What do you think?PatW 19:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

So Jossi I see you over on the proposal page you have 'tagged' this as 'unverifiable material' when it is actually straight from Collier. What's up? I fail to see how Colliers quote is less verifiable than any of the others used. Please explain.PatW 19:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean that I have not succeeded in a decent paraphrase. Apologies. It was not my intention to alter Colliers meaning. What I actually get from the quote is that Rawat was encouraging people to see him as a Messianic figure because that was kind of their religious background anyway. However I feel we still need to make the point that he spoke this way to western audiences as well and may people were encouraged by his words to see him in a Messianic role. Not everyone neccessarily was predisposed to see him that way. I think that even this quote is somewhat ambiguous about Rawat's ambiguity! PatW 20:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The text "Whilst he generally encouraged whatever views people held around him, the tone of his speeches inspired many to see him in a Messianic role" is what WP:SYN warns us about. We can cite Collier and others, but we cannot create that synthesis or provide that conclusion. The summary can surely be written without violating WP:SYN, though. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Good. I admit, I am over-tired and I think it best to leave it for others to have a go right now.PatW 20:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note the talk page on the proposed article has moved http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal/talk and yet again Momento has instantly reverted my edit ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal&diff=126753862&oldid=126752170 )which was exactly what Vassayana asked for...namely to state that Rawat made both claims and denials about his Godhood/divinity. I'm now virtually despairing of Vassayana actually mediating on this, so for the last time, if you're there Vassayana, please please help.PatW 02:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that with a little bit of patience from all sides we can arrive to an agreeable compromise. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm off to the new article. Good bye.Momento 05:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You've either forgotten about (or deliberately avoided - for the fourth time) the question you said you were going to answer, Momento, namely:

The book "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?" (published by Bantam Press) asked, on its back cover: "Why do more than six million people around the world claim he is the greatest incarnation of God that ever trod the face of this planet?". We're all waiting. Revera 17:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there are many things said about him over the years. There is a collection of these at Wikiquote. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

My question was for Momento who said he would answer, and still has an obligation to.

Til then, I'd like to know why you're so averse to letting that claim - notable enough by any criteria - be included in the article?

How many people have had such a claim made about them? Very few. Yet you see fit to actively prevent any mention being made about the fact that so many were claiming him to be "the greatest incarnation of God ..." etc?

Why so reluctant Jossi? Why don't you want this extremely notable and well-sourced claim mentioned in this so-called 'encyclopedia'?

Revera 21:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rawat. When a reporter asked him at Millenium "Why is there such a great contradiction between what you say about yourself and what your followers say about you?" Rawat said "Well, why don't you do me a favor.. . why don't you go to the devotees and ask their explanation about it?" Exactly.Momento 00:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

1. It is not disputed that Prem Rawat at least encouraged his followers to acknowledge his divinity/divine role at various times and in various ways.
2. It is not disputed that he has denied such appellations at various times and in various ways.
3. It is not disputed that Prem Rawat's family and organization(s) have acknowledged and promoted various views regarding the divinity/divine nature of the guru.
4. Numerous sources, including some already used in the article, discuss this topic.
5. Direct quotes from sources should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Report what a variety of sources have said, instead of repeating what individual sources have said.
6. Criticisms and apologetics should be avoided at all costs, unless the editors intend to expand the issue into a distinct section.

That about sums up my own view of this debate. To be honest, it feels like the critics want to put undue weight on the interpretation he claimed to be G-d and the supporters want to put undue weight on the interpretation that such views were imposed on Prem Rawat by others. I think both positions result in undue weight without addressing the issue in a quality fashion for an outside reader. Some food for thought. As always, you're quite welcome to my opinion with some grains of salt. Vassyana 01:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Vassyana. I agree with all points, with some caveats. I do not think that there any sources that will warrant an apologetics section. The closest we have is Downton's book in this regard, in which the author analyzed and discussed the subject quite extensively. Most of the dispute lies in editor's interpretation of quotes, and editor's interpretation of "G-o-d", divine, divinity, etc., an issue that has been warned about consistently during these discussions. If we stick to the numerous sources we have on the subject, we will do OK, I believe. (See for example this attempt ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Vassyana, I believe you have it right. But "...addressing the issue in a quality fashion for an outside reader" you said a big one there. Let's try some more. Rumiton 12:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this edit comes close to a good overview of the topic. To avoid editor conflict and reader misunderstandings, it may be better to replace "God" with "divine nature". I believe the latter better encompasses the wide variety of beliefs regarding this particular issue. Otherwise, I think that particular version covers the topic at hand well, based upon my understanding of available sources. I do not know, nor care, whether or not it is a "true" depiction. What I do know, and care about, is that it is an accurate representation of the sources. Cheers! Vassyana 19:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't about a "wide variety of beliefs" Vassyana, this is about a new religious movement that has a particular belief system, lead by Prem Rawat. It has to do with the words Rawat has spoken because that's how he makes his living. The words he has used are very important and to dilute them to avoid conflict is just the strangest thing, silly, really. That's the most outrageous thing you've come up with yet. I don't think you're in a position to make an adequate judgement of this article at all. For you to say you don't care if the article is a true depiction is another outrage. This is an encyclopedia and btw, the source material was selectively chosen to favor the subject, when in fact, the only reason he is notable is his notoriety. In other words, he wouldn't have gotten any attention from scholars or the press if he wasn't considered a cult leader. It's simply unacceptable for you to put yourself in the position of neutral judge and say I'm trying to put undue weight on criticism, when, within the last six months adherents have 1) completely deleted an entire article called "Criticism of Prem Rawat; 2) deleted all the material that was in the "Criticism" section, and transferred to this article, including the actual section "Criticism;" and 3) you've ignored the fact that all the adherents have essentially hijacked the article and disallowed anyone but premies from making substantive edits, without these long, useless conversations about those redacted edits. Sylviecyn 21:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I take a serious exception on your comments, as these are not only misleading, but also factually incorrect.

1. The criticism article was merged into this one by the request of a non-involved editors (not by "proponents" as you claim), and no text was lost in the merge;
2. The obviously abundant sources were not "chosen", but researched thoroughly by many editors, including proponents, opponents and others;
3. Vassyana is a disinterested party that is offering assistance in this dispute, after challenging editors via a scathing GA review, which all involved editors accepted;
4. There is absolutely no possibility in Wikipedia to "hijack" an article, despite your recurrent comments about that. You are welcome to edit this article like any other editor, and your edits will be assessed on their merit, same as any other editor;
5. Vassyana has not put himself in the role of "neutral judge". It is editors in this pages that have requested of him to give some neutral comments and provide his opinion on disputed edits.
6. His comment about the text being "an accurate representation of the sources" and not a "true depiction" is 100% compatible with the policies on this encyclopedia. You may need to refresh your memory of what WP:Verifiability means.
7. Your lack of WP:AGF in your comments, just because you do not like what a disinterested editor had to say, is most concerning.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I never was in favor of merging the criticism article, but was ignored. It's absolutely possible for people to hijack an article and this one is proof. Adherents spend a lot of time obsfucating issues to get their way and pov through -- all of the time -- no matter what you say and how many times you deny it. Repeating something over and over doesn't make it so, Jossi. Not all of the editors "asked" Vassyana anything, you asked him to judge the article for GA status. I was never asked about that process. I don't need to refresh my memory of what verifiability means, you condescend once again, Jossi. It's unacceptable scholarship that anyone writing on an encyclopedia (or anywhere) would be content with an article that's not accurate and true especially when there are adequate sources to provide material to do so but they are omitted or paraphrased in such a way that spins this hagiography. Because I think this way isn't a show of bad faith, Jossi; wanting something to as truthful as possible isn't showing bad faith. I have a right to my opinions about Vassyana's assessment without being disparaged by you. Sylviecyn 09:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not "disparage" you, as you said. You have all rights to have an opinion about anyone here, so do I. You have the right to make suggestions, engage in discussions and edit this and any other article: this is Wikipedia. In this project, when there are disputes, we ask third opinions, which we did. If you do not like that process, then you may need to reconsider your participation, because these are the rules here. This article (an the new proposal) is not a hagiography whatsoever. You may need to sharpen your understanding of that term. All sources in this and related articles are sound, and if you have a concern about a specific citation, bring it to the attention of editors, make proposals for fixing it, etc. Complaints do not an article make. Hard work, sound research, engaging other involved editors constructively, and asking for third opinions when stuck, does.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty of scholarstic material showing Rawat was consistant and stated clearly- I am not God, I am not the Christian Messiah, I am a Guru/Perfect Master (who are seen as divine), I am greater than God (because Guru's reveal God), we are all divine (to or from God). There are several contradictions here IF you want to interpret Rawat's comments through a Christian filter. If you accept the Indian basis for his teachings, there are no contradictions. No scholar suggests Rawat was "contradictory". To paraphrase the entire topic - Rawat's Hindu based theology caused confusion amongst some westerners who tried to interpret his ideas according to Christian theology.--Momento 19:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Now look towards me. Suppose this book is God. I may keep it in my pocket or in my bag, as I like. There is no trouble. But when I keep the living God in a bag, in my pocket, God will begin crying. Now the living God will need meals two times a day, tea, butter, cheese, milk, ghee. In addition to all these things for His feeding, so many things will be needed for His worship. He will need one room for which there will be a very good cot with a very good bed; and at night there should be someone to serve Him there also. But there is no trouble with a God who is in a book. I may keep that God there easily. That is why people worship God in a book, a God who is formless. But one who is devoted to God in form and person gets the fruits in form and in person. One who puts his devotion to the Lord in body gets the real fruits in form, and one who puts his devotion to the formless Lord, to the formless God, gets fruits in no form.

One who is devoted to his Lord in body can see all the real virtue in form, and get the real fruits. Devotion towards the formless God is completely useless, because the object which the devotion is done for has neither horns, nor tail, nor legs, nothing. Therefore, my dear brothers, it is said that the whole universe is blind.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PatW" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.30.176 (talk • contribs) '

I have attempted to incorporate Vassyana's suggestion in the proposal, just to see how that would read. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, your new sentence suggesting Rawat denied a "divine nature in interviews and talks" is not right. He has one and so do we. A large part of Rawat's teachings are concerned with redicovering our "divine nature". We're not there yet. Momento 06:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we are not there yet, but maybe getting close to find the correct wording to describe that specific aspect. Let's keep trying. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's take this conversation to the proposal talk.--Momento 20:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sylvie and Momento: There are a wide variety of views, as well-evidenced on this talk page and available sources. Premies, ex-premies and outside writers have expressed a breadth of views on this particular topic. You are both exhibiting a strong preference for your own interpretation of various quotes and statements. It's perfectly fine for you to have your own opinion. We all have our opinions. Also, I wished to comment that I have read numerous sources outside of those included in the article due to my interest in the topic and my involvement in these discussions. Below is an example of a source that addresses the issue that is fairly typical of most neutral sources that discuss the matter. Vassyana 00:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana, the futility and miserable waste of time of all these discussions that you describe as "opinions" have primarily been an argument about the Sophia Collier quote, that Patw and I wanted included in the text of the article. It's now been entirely moved from the article text to the footnote section. People generally don't read footnotes, so Pat and I lost the argument while you've been doing nothing to address the specific issue. That's what all these weeks of arguing have been about. The Collier quote is probably the most valuable concerning Rawat's claims of divinity -- even more so than that of scholars -- because she writes as a former or ex-premie who worked in Divine Light Mission headquarters in Denver, Colorado, and what she says reflects very well how things were then in the mission. She writes from a unique, close vantage point unlike the scholars. Better yet, she's also a published secondary source! Please address this specific issue.

Btw, Rawat didn't suddenly renounce or disavow his divine status and start discussing the divine nature of all human beings instead. He always taught about the divine internal nature of human beings, as well as his own divinity. Momento agrees with that. Rawat did both at the same time. Those are his teachings. Moreover, he also taught that Guru Maharaj Ji is within people, too, "Guru Maharaj Ji is Knowledge." It's a sort of trinitarianism of beliefs with a bit of Hindu and Christian symbolism thrown in the mix during the earlier years. He most certainly has compared himself to Krishna, Ram and Jesus (all the big religious avatars) and at the very least has has said that he reveals the same Knowledge as they did, as what is described the Bible, Gita, etc. I can assure you that I'm not viewing this from a Christian perspective, as I've been an atheist for many years.

Vassyana, please don't assume that I don't know the difference between my opinion and my objective observations. I have the ability to state both well. I disagree with you about not quoting sources. That's how good scholarship is practiced all over the world, except I suppose, in Wikipedia. Good writers are able to write prose with quoted material. One must trust the reader to make their own interpretation of what a quoted source has said or written. When editors attempt to interpret what a scholar/writer/theologian has written, by paraphrasing it into prose, is when an editor's opinion gets inserted into an article such as this. That is the slippery slope to writing opinions and/or POV, and why Pat and I argued so strongly to include the exact quote from Collier and the Time article quotes about Rawat's family. I also object to how the sources are placed at the end of each paragraph in the draft/bio. It's a show of poor and lazy writing, imo, to have two- and three-sentence paragraphs with many footnotes at the end of each paragraph and also is unacceptable writing. This has been discussed over the years (in archives) when it happened before in this article. Finally, the majority of sources cited have corresponding quoted material in the footnotes, with the exception of cites from Andrea Cagan's Peace is Possible. I would think that all sources should be treated consistently, and ask that the Cagan passages corresponding to the prose in the article, other than the book page numbers, be added. Thank you. Sylviecyn 12:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You may have missed this: The ref numbers at the end of sentences is a temporary measure (I raised the same concern about it, and that is what Momento said) Once the text is agreed, the refs should be placed on the appropriate spots in the sentences. You are mistaken about the quotes, Most sources listed have quotations in the footnote section. If any of these are missing please point them out and will find and re-add. I misunderstood what you said. I will add quoted text to all of Cagan's refs. May take a few days. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The Collier quote was removed at Vassanya's suggestion in accordance with Wiki policy to avoid "quote for quote" mining. The only direct quotes in the article are Hoffman's because it is his quote that is famous and Rawat's four word reply and Kabir's. All the rest is a summation of many sourced quotes from many scholars. Here's another Collier quote that isn't included - "Premies who believe that Guru Maharaj Ji is the Lord have at least some actual basis for their belief. Through the Knowledge, most premies were experiencing an unusually great degree of happiness and peace of mind. Given my own experiences in Knowledge, if I were a religious person, I might easily have thought Guru Maharaj Ji was the Lord. After all, through the Knowledge he had taught me to do something I had wanted to do all my life and had never been able to. He taught me to consciously unlock the kingdom of energy, power, and love inside myself, to get back inside of the East Hampton wave on a permanent basis. Now from all signs, that deepest want in me was satisfied. At any time I wanted to, I could meditate and be right there. For a religious person this could easily seem like adequate proof for identifying a divinity".

PS. As I wrote on 30th April "I much prefer to group the references at the end of the paragraph to which they refer. Because the ref numbers are bigger than the text, inserting them in the text makes the line spacing vary which looks untidy. Wiki guidelines say - Place a ref tag at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers. Can we agreee to place cites at the "end of the paragraph to which the note refers"--Momento 20:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That does not wok. Mommento, as the refs are there to comply by WP:V. Readers need to be able to know what ref is used to assert each opinion or fact. That is common practice in Wikipedia, and there is no way around it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll start inserting. If you can find any sources that combine material, that would be great.--Momento 00:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Outside neutral source about the guru's divinity

A Brief Guide to Beliefs: Ideas, Theologies, Mysteries, and Movements By Linda Edwards ISBN 0664222595.

He [Shri Hans Maharaj Ji] died in 1966 and was succeeded by his youngest son, Prem Pal Singh Rawat who is reported to have said at his funeral: "You have been deceived by maya (illusion); Maharaj Ji is here in your midst, recognize him, worship him and obey him." Maharaj Ji had already become a spiritual adept by the age of six, and at age nine he gave himself the title of Perfect Master at his father's funeral. He was two years later recognized as the new "Perfect Master," an embodiment of God on earth and therefore worthy of veneration. (Page 277-278)

In the early 1980s, Maharaj Ji ordered all the ashrams disbanded and renounced his almost divine status. (Page 278)

In the [later] Divine Light mission the guru taught that humanity is inherently divine. (Page 278)

This is generally the pattern outside sources seem to take. They note that Prem Rawat was venerated as an avatar/embodiment of G-d. They note he renounced his Godhood/divinity/almost divine nature when he reformed the movement. They report he later taught that all people/humanity is divine. Some sources put forward that he simply conformed to the expectations of those around him. Others strongly push the Godhood/G-d angle. Some of them report how this reverence for his divine nature was encouraged by him, his org, his family and his supporters. Other sources note that it was imposed on him, or a misunderstanding. It is not so black and white an issue in the sources as either side would make it out to be. Vassyana 00:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Linda Edwards has two errors in three sentences. Rawat became the Perfect Master at eight not nine and was recognized as the new "Perfect Master" at the same time, not two years later. But everything else you have presented is accurately contained in the new article from verifiable and quoted sources. Chronologically it has Rawat declaring himself to be a Guru and Perfect Master ( defined in the article as "an embodiment of God on Earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration"), it has Hoffman addressing the issue of Rawat being God and Rawat saying he isn't but his knowledge is. It has Rawat saying he's not Jesus but that "pre-existing millennial beliefs were fostered partly by his mother, whose talks were full of references to her son's divine nature, and partly by Rawat himself, when he let others cast him in the role of the Lord". It has a report that Rawat was said to "generally encourage whatever view is held by the people he is with". It has Rawat becoming more secular after his split from his family. It has Rawat appearing in Indian dress in 1976 and the shift from secular tendencies towards ritual and messianic beliefs. And it has his final abandonement of Indian methods and practices in the early 80s. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal/talk for more on this.Momento 02:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Good find Vassyana. I would say that if we disregard the mistake made by Edwards about the chronology, and other minutiae, her assertions are quite accurate and I believe that are reflected in the current bio proposal. We could add this new source as well, as it re-affirms what other scholars have reported on the subject. Nothing better than consensus of sources to solidify an edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

There are more interesting viewpoints in Edwards book: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Maharaj Ji now teaches a simple self-discovery process, involving four simple techniques to turn the senses within and appreciate the joyful basis of existence beyond thoughts and ideas. He denies the criticism that his teachings represent instant gratification, but he sees it instead as an ongoing learning process that can enrich an individual's life. [...] The emphasis is on seeking what is already within. (pp.279)

Edwards has some errors, but her book is well-written and contains a plethora of interesting information. On the errors, having read the book it seems no more or less reliable than other general overviews of religion and comparable to the reliability of general encyclopedias regarding religion. I would recommend it as a good read and general source. Larson's Book of World Religions and Alternative Spirituality By Bob Larson (ISBN 084236417X) is another good source in a similar vein. They are both good for verifying general information and getting an overview of a subject. Vassyana 20:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree about Edwards, but I am not sure about Larson's. His book is slanted toward a criticism of any faith that is not Christian. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts

Sylvie is quite welcome to criticize my given opinions. I do not think she is engaging in personal attacks, and I certainly have not been offended by her comments. However, I would like to hear constructive suggestions about what could be done to improve the article. If some editors find my outside opinion to be insufficient or biased, someone could easily file a request for comment on the article to solicit more of them.

Criticism is best included into the main body of an article, rather than having its own section. Some editors will complain when such text is folded into articles. However, it is entirely appropriate to raise those criticisms at an appropriate point in the article, rather than draw attention to them by segegrating the information into its own titled section. Certainly, I'd imagine those who object to the integration of that information into the rest of the article would object very strongly to an "acheivements" or "praise received" section.

The Collier material is a good example of the perils of quote mining. As demonstrated on this talk page, one can mine a quote to support the position the guru claimed to be (or at least well-encouraged) G-d/divinity incarnate. On the other hand, one can mine a quote that seems to indicate it was only a perception of premies based on the benefits they felt from the Techniques. We should not be cherrypicking quotes. We should be reporting an overview of what reliable sources state about the subject.

Finally, for those objecting to the direction of the current working draft, what is missing from the draft? How is it inaccurate? What could be done to improve it? What sources support your position? If the current set of references is a biased sample, as has been claimed, why not provide additional verifiable references? Vassyana 20:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree on the Collier material. That was inserted by an adherent, if I'm not mistaken, but cherry-picked to reflect the adherent pov. Therefore, because a large part of the quote was missing, that indeed completed Collier's thought and meaning, Pat and I were merely trying to gain some accuracy in the paragraph to correctly reflect what Collier was actually saying. I don't know how many ways and how many times I have to explain this to you, but it wasn't cherry picking on the part of ex-premies here, and it certainly wasn't quote mining, because it's not even a quote by Rawat. And it's beyond my comprehension why quoting Rawat is unacceptable in an article about him, when he has made his living on speaking for 40 years! Yes, yes, I know about Wikiquote.

But, to answer your question. The article's lead doesn't mention the negative press coverage young Rawat received during his first years in the west. The article doesn't mention the controversy in the press and within the group during the family split (there was a lot of coverage) and it's not mentioned when Rawat was pied in Detroit by Pat Halley, and how Halley was was attacked by Rawat's follwers and left for dead. No one was charged with the crime. It was all over the press at the time. The criticism of Rawat by the media is further obfuscated by the third paragraph which gives the implication that young Maharaji's only goal was "the desire to manifest his vision," when in fact, there are other sources that say differently. It minimizes his marriage to Durga Ji (Marolyn) as if that was an after-thought on his part, instead his defiancce of his mother as a 16 year old marrying woman 8 years his senior, as well as the controversy that caused. All in all, the article glosses over the entire reason that Rawat had any fame or reason to warrant this article to begin with, but becasue the Elan Vital revisionism is so ingrained in the article already, I don't hold out much hope for improvement, and I don't have the time to be discussing each issue on talk pages for a month at a time, without any resolutions. Frankly, I think you're tring to be so very "neutral" that you've begun siding with the adherents. Thanks! Sylviecyn 13:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide sources about the broad press controversy? Can you provide sources for the Detroit/Pat Halley incident? Regarding the marriage, I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. What is missing from the section? Does the focus of it need to be more balanced? What is the article missing in order to fully report Rawat's fame and notibility? Vassyana 00:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The "pie" incident was in the article a couple of years a year ago, but was removed as it was deemed to be non notable in a biographical article. I will look for the diff, and post it here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Here it is.

In 1973 after a reporter at a public event in Detroit hit Rawat in the face with a shaving cream pie, the reporter was attacked with a hammer and injured by two angry students. In an article published in Penthouse magazine in July 1974, it was reported that the DLM issued a press release informing that the pair were in fact students, and that they were held in custody at the Chicago ashram. They also promised a full investigation. The Detroit police did not pursue the matter. Diff

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The pie incident was removed by Momento, because he thought it was not relevant to Prem Rawat. I finally put this highly notable event at Divine Light Mission because Momento kept reverting me when I re-inserted it. Andries 21:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Also note that the incident is reported in the Divine Light Mission article as per above wording. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As the source used in that article was an op-ed published in Penthouse Magazine which are not considered reliable sources, I have replaced the source and expanded the text about that incident at the Divine Light Mission article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Vassayana, apologies for not being more involved at this stage. It is not possible for me to devote so much time at present. Answering your questions: we have provided better reliable sources, verifiable references etc. in the past and they were deleted. It's as simple as that. We are all getting tired of this little game now.
I am puzzled why the Collier quote(s) should be any more an 'example of the perils of quote mining' than any other quote. My input on this article in it's various incarnations has been mainly to argue about the misuse of quotes by premies to accentuate their POV. I personally have not actually been successful in introducing any quotes into the articles although I have suggested many. I have simply extended the existing ones (ie. the Collier quote) as I strongly objected to the omission of the latter part. Whilst I have been arguing extensively on my Talk Page and here on all these issues, Momento is the champion editor here and virtually all the 'quote mining' has been done by him as far as I can see. No doubt he will be quick to assert that is not the case but critics have not really edited this article (or the 'proposed article') at all. It is by and large all Momento's work with encouragemnt from Jossi.
You may also imagine that so-called critics are as dedicated to (or as successful in) criticising this article as premies are to create it. That is not the case, which is why the article is slanted. I can reliably tell you that almost all the ex-premies (again 'so-called') have either given up the impossible task or restrict their involvement to occasional comments. I am one of the few who have lately tried to reason ad nauseam with Momento and Jossi over how to constructively improve the article. Frankly I don't think it's possible to reason with the current editors who are determined to 'do the job' themselves. My opinion remains, as it was when I started here, that this article will only be neutral when it is made by neutral editors ie. non-premies and non ex-premies. I like to think I am a whole lot more neutral than I was as a follower, so I also am mildly suprised that you apparently consider that ex-premies are not more neutral than the premies who edit here (who I think are doing this for Rawat's organisation). It seems obvious that neither you or I can make this article more balanced until it ceases to be primarily the work of one or two men who represent Rawat's organisation. So I agree maybe something more could be done to attract more truly impartial editors. I've done that in the past and no-one was interested.PatW 15:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What information is missing from the article? Can you point me to the sources you're referring to? What does the article overemphasize? What changes would you make first? Vassyana 00:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Pat, you will hardly find an article about which there are conflicting and strong opposing views being edited by "neutral editors". Examples of such abound ( e.g. Allegations of Israeli apartheid, Dominionism as two examples amongst thousand others). Is it difficult to arrive to a neutral and factually accurate article in these cases? Sure it is. But that does not mean that is not possible. It requires a lot of patience and perseverance, but it is possible. We had an article that I though was excellent, and I posted a request to have it reviewed for GA status, after two peer reviews that I initiated to seek independent editors' feedback. The GA review by Vassyana, was scathing, but nonetheless efforts were immediately made to address the concerns raised. First, the current article was improved substantially based on the input given, and later on a separate effort by other editors (to which I have hardly contributed, just making some format corrections here and there and adding a couple of sources) took shape as a proposal to replace the current article. That is the process in WP: seek third party opinions, validate your assumptions about the quality of an article by seeking peer reviews, endeavor to promote an article to GA status and then to FA status. I have done this on several articles and it always resulted in better articles. I see no reason why it should nor work here. Sure, it is not easy, and it requires a lot of patience, and efforts to research and provide good secondary sources. But not impossible. That has been my experience in WP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the Dominionism article Jossi referred to. I was able to follow the article in much the same way I have been following the current "Evolution vs Intelligent Design" debate, i.e. as a bizarre twist of US culture (for which I forgive them, for did they not also give us The Simpsons? Not to mention the Flying Spaghetti Monster?) But the Discussion Page was incomprehensible to me. I know nothing about the subject and care less, and could no more contribute intelligently than walk to the moon. I could be NPOV, to be sure, but I could not help with the article. You have to care to be able to do that. I think this is the point Jossi is making. We are stuck with each other. Rumiton 14:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Rumiton 02:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Great, so I'm stuck with the guy who would have me believe the guru speaks in the spirit of a noodled monstrosity!! I know he is the incarnation of an unseen Pink holiness! Why else would he speak of the maya of mosquitoes? :) Vassyana 09:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Beware, O Vassyana, lest your secret affiliations be shouted in the marketplace! How would your benevolent work as a neutral Wiki assistant be affected if your status as an adherent (note my neutral word choice…I could have chosen another!) of a mysterious, possibly Eastern, cult were revealed? And your occasional absences shown up for what they are…the fulfillment of your votive duties in worship of the unspeakable hooved ones!

The time is near when the Flying Spaghetti Monster will reveal the Truth!  :-)

(All right, before Jossi gets all stern with us, this is rather silly. But so is most of this discussion page. I’m not giving up, but I strongly suggest that anyone interested in Prem Rawat, rather than the opinions of these tediously respectable academics and antsy premies and exes, Google “The Keys by Maharaji,” download a video from the site and watch it. Enjoy!)

And now back to the REAL silliness... Rumiton 12:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Vassayana it may be an idea for you to peruse some of the original article versions to see what valid material has been omitted, and to gain your own impression of what is now overemphasised or lacking. I've already made it clear that I think that 'Rawat generally encouraged people to view him as they wanted' is overemphasized in the face of all the evidence that he personally encouraged people to see him as divine. I haven't had time to focus on any other points hence my suggestion that you do your own investigation.
Jossi and Ruminton: I think you're both right, however it's evident that few people 'care enough' to devote much time here. As you may have noticed, I do care. I just regret that I simply don't have the neccessary time to do the job properly. Besides there is nothing harder than trying to reason with people with religious beliefs. I don't mean to be insulting but you guys have a very particular religious belief that makes you care to present Rawat in the most favourable light. The Spaghetti Monster God is a good example of how the most ludicrous position can be supported. As we know, that was conceived as a parody to mock the absurdity of 'creationism' being taught in schools. All the arguments we've had about Rawat and 'aspects of his divinity' seem to me to illustrate how sensitive you current premies still are around the subject of some of the more ludicrous beliefs that both Rawat and past premies have entertained. Don't you think it's time that Rawat and premies grew up a bit and stopped demonstrating this historic 'ambiguity' and 'shyness' about all that? Obviously a lot of premies havegrown up and now consider this 'shyness' and 'ambiguity' blatant dishonesty. Please bear that in mind. PatW 10:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A perfect example of overemphasis is where the proposed article says Rawat 'let others cast him in the role of the Lord.' The implicit suggestion that he did not also cast himself in that role is both intentional and dishonest. As we have argued on my user page the is tons of evidence that he actively encouraged that perception both by his words and actions and as the head of the organisation.PatW.

James V. Downton PhD., is a professor at Sacramento State College and professor emeritus of Sociology at the College of Arts and Sciences of the University of Colorado at Boulder. He is, by far, the most knowledgable and detailed researcher of early 70s DLM. In 1972, he started by getting 18 Boulder premies, 13 premies from Kansas City and 10 from Atlanta to complete questionnaires. He then spent a month living in the Boulder ashram. He conducted taped interviews of the Boulder premies, 13 who lived in the ashram and 5 on the outside. Follow-up interviews were conducted over the next several years with seven premies who seemed representative of the larger group. He maintained contact with all eighteen. In the summer of 1976, an extensive questionnaire was mailed to the remaining fifteen (3 had left), exploring changes which had taken place in their lives and in the movement since they had joined. In 1979 he published "Sacred Journeys" based on that research and presented the following conclusion: "millennial thinking" prior to 1974 was fostered "by the guru's mother, whose satsang was full of references to his divine nature; and partly by the guru, himself, for letting others cast him in the role of the Lord". Downton is the most credible scholarly source we have on the period. For PatW to claim that such a well credentialed researcher as Downton is "dishonest" is disturbing.Momento 12:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Similar interviews were made by Dr. Van der Lans and Derks in the Netherlands. Andries 20:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The focus of Downton's research were premies and the DLM which is not the subject of this article. Andries 20:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

First point Andries, Dr. Van der Lans and Derks didn't research the early '70s which is the time we're discussing. Second, are you suggesting we should remove what Downton and others say about premies in this article? I don't think you will get much support for that radical suggestion.Momento 20:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a very dubious argument, Andries. If there is material in that book (or any other such book) that is relevant to the divinity aspects and the perceptions of Prem Rawat at that time and in that context, I see no reason why to dismiss it. Or are you arguing for the removal of all scholarly sources from this article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course I wasn't suggesting Downton was dishonest. I actually meant that your use of his work is dishonest. That's clearly much more disturbing. PatW 20:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Given a choice between presenting Downton's opinion or yours; honesty, and Wiki policy, compel me to choose Downton.Momento 20:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain why and in which manner citing that work is dishonest, Pat? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

My opinion does not come into it. Give it up Momento, nobody is remotely amused by your smug jibes. The fact is that there is a wealth of evidence that Rawat did not just let others cast him in the role of Lord. Just for one example, he encouraged people to sing 'Arti' to him (or his picture). We did that routinely at festivals and it was part of the ashram rules. He wrote the rule book of course. As you know that included the words 'You are my all my Lord to me'. I suggest you go find some scholarly sources to describe what actually happened rather than just to support your fanciful ideas. Just to jog your failing memory here are the words to Arti:

Jai Gurudev Maharaj Ji Your glory fills the world Protector of the weary and the weak You bring the death of attachment You bring the mind true detachment Save us from the ocean deep Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Creator, Preserver, Destroyer Bow their heads and pray to You All bow and pray to You Scriptures sing Your glory Heaveny hosts sing Your praises Your virtues are ever true Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Chanting, fasting, charity, austerity never bring you knowledge of the soul will never reveal your soul without the grace of satguru without the Knowledge of Satguru rites and rituals never reach the goal Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

In the river of bondage to maya All are swept out to sea All are sinking in the depths of the sea Guru's boat is the holy name Guru's ship is the holy word In seconds he has set us free Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

In the river of bondage to maya All are swept out to sea All are sinking in the depths of the sea Guru's boat is the holy name Guru's ship is the holy word In seconds he has set us free Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Anger, desire, attachments Rob us of eternal life Take away our heavenly life Satguru gives us true Knowledge Satguru is eternal Knowledge The sword that kills our problem life Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Religions harp their own glories Call to follow their own path Welcome me to follow their own way The essence of all was revealed The seed of all was revealed I walk on the true way today Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Nectar from Satguru's feet is Holy and it cleans us of our sins So sacred in cleaning us of sin When he speaks, darkness flies away When he speaks, darkness cannot stay Doubts removed, new life then begins Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Mine, Thine, Wealth, Health Give them to the lotus feet of love Give them to the lotus feet of the Lord Give yourself to Satguru Sacrifice yourself to Satguru Be united with the blissful Truth Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Bible, Gita, the Koran Sing the glory of Your Name They all sing the glory of Your Name Angels sing Your great glory Heavenly hosts sing Your praises They find no end to Your fame Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Desires have robbed me and left me Trapped in the darkness of the night Yes, they've trapped me in the darkness of the night Guru gives holy Name and Light Guru gives Holy Name and Sight Cross the ocean by His Love and Light Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Many past forms you have taken Now we have come in your control Again You have come to save the soul In this time of darkness To lead Your devotees from darkness You have come as Hansa the pure soul Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Come to the shelter of Guru's grace Come with your heart and your soul Bring Him your heart and your soul Cross the worldly ocean Cross it by your devotion And attain the supreme goal Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev

Jai Gurudev Maharaj Ji Your glory fills the world Protector of the weary and the weak You bring the death of attachment You bring the mind true detachment Save us from the ocean deep Jai Dev, Jai Satgurudev PatW 21:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

For anyone interested here is where you can read Downtons actual material. Momento provided this link on my user page then for some reason Jossi deleted the link. PatW 21:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it because it is a copyright violation. Deleted again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I thought that it was not copyright violation to reproduce extracts from a book. The entire book is not there but some very interesting portions. I simply thought Vassayana might be interested to peruse it. Indeed it is an interesting read. He says things like:
With this weakening of eastern influences, premies began to change their attitudes toward Guru Maharaj Ji. Since the Mission was moving in a more secular direction, it was understandable that premies would begin to view the guru in a less cosmic way. Thus, by 1975 the official line was that Guru Maharaj Ji was to be regarded as "humanitarian leader," rather than Lord of the Universe. The word circulated that Guru Maharaj Ji himself had initiated this change, although apparently that was not the case.
You see how easy it is to select quotes to assert a POV? PatW 23:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to add that material if you see that specific point to be important. As for copyvios, a small portion of a book is OK as per WP:FAIR, but that link is not such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As many scholars have written (and faithfully included in the article) Rawat's early teachings were a type of Hinduism of which Arti or Aarti is an aspect. According to Wiki, It "is performed and sung to develop the highest love for God. "Aa" means "towards", and "rati" means "the highest love for God" in Sanskrit. Aarti is generally performed twice or three times daily, and usually at the end of a puja or bhajan session. It is performed during almost all Hindu ceremonies and occasions. Aarti is performed on people of high social or economic status; small children during various ceremonies; on people who are going on or are coming back from a long journey; on a bride and bridegroom when they enter their house for the first time; at harvest; on anything else of importance. It is also performed on newly acquired property, or before an important task".Momento 22:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Arathi with this text is clearly a worship of a deity. E.g "Satgurudev" from the text means true guru deity. Andries 22:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Adi Shankara, widely considered one of the most important figures of Indian intellectual history, begins his Gurustotram or Verses to the Guru with the following Sanskrit Sloka, that is a widely sung Bhajan:

Guru Brahma Guru Vishnu Guru Devo Maheshwara
Guru Sakshath Parambrahma Tasmai Shri Gurave Namaha
Guru is creator Brahma; Guru is preserver Vishnu; Guru is also the destroyer Siva and he is the source of the Absolute. I offer all my salutations to the Guru.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Early teachings? Here's what Downton says about the habit of singing of Arti to Rawat in 1977 - sounds like sincere encouragement to me - Any thoughts Vassayana?:
With so many premies coming out in support of devotion, there has been a shift away from secular tendencies back to ritual and messianic beliefs and practices. There is more bowing, more pictures of the guru everywhere, more devotional singing, and Indian terms and expressions are making their way back into the language of premies. Encouraged by Guru Maharaj Ji, there is apparently less insistence on blind conformity to the crowd mentality. More tolerance is being shown as premies admit that individual experiences may differ and each should be respected. For example, the devotional song, Arti, is being sung again, but Guru Maharaj Ji is urging those who are not moved to sing it from the heart to simply remain silent. Speaking to a conference of coordinators in Portland in 1977, he said: "This is really beautiful, you know, that everything is starting to happen over again, that premies are really understanding. But one of the things that we have to be sure about is that when premies do Arti, they understand what they're saying and that they mean it. Because there's no point to just sit there and blab about it and not even mean it. You have to really mean it. You have to really understand it. Because its a prayer. And the same thing with really listening to satsang."PatW 23:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you edit some of that in. What I had read until now on the talk page by Downton was very selective in the sense that it misrepresented his work. Andries 00:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You're joking aren't you? It wouldn't last a minute with Momento around. My strategy here is to try to urge Momento to demonstrate more honesty and neutrality and take these things into account himself. It is virtually his article after all. If the 'dominant one' won't let us edit the article then we should just point out where we think there needs to be improvement it and why. Also we need to communicate to the GA judges our reasoning. Momento should rightly be embarrassed to be seen to be the author of a dishonest article. I don't believe it helps to patch up his article for him, firstly because we won't succeed and secondly because it will merely serve to give the false impression that they have somehow integrated the requests of critics - which of course is far from the truth. And the only reason he would like that impression to be given is so as he can get the article stamped with some accolade. PatW 00:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I see.... That is the reason you are not contributing to improving the article? So that you can continue and complain about not being accurate, and that other editors who do edit it are dishonest? Well, that is not the way this work in WP, Pat. Vassyana has asked you many times to say what you see wrong, so that it can be fixed. And as far as I can see, there is a good response from those people that are editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand PatW does not edit in, because he expects to be instantly reverted by Momemento. I can understand the reasoning behind it, though I think the strategy is wrong. A few reverts are not a big deal. Andries 00:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What kinds of special powers Momento has that other editors don't? Any editor editwarring will be dinged for 3RR and/or disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

All this revertiing PatW? The edit history tells a completely different story. On this article PatW has made less than half a dozen edits in the last year, none of which were reverted. On the new article PatW made a dozen or so edits on March 31, none of which were reverted. April 2 PatW removed Rawat's response to Hoffman and I reverted. April 27 PatW did some OR/SYN editing, to which Jossi and I objected, and PatW conceded "Yes, I agree it's not right yet. Sorry", which I fixed because PatW wouldn't. April 29 I removed this incomplete edit of PatW's "Godhood/divine status, in 197..?". OR/SYN edit reinserted by PatW April 30 and removed by Rumiton. OR/SYN edit resinserted once more by PatW, fixed by Jossi. No edits from PatW since.Momento 02:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The art of understatement (by Momento)

(Momento's article)
'However, his appearance in Indian dress at an event on December 20th, 1976 in Atlantic City, New Jersey, signaled a resurgence of Indian influence. Rawat was elevated to a much greater place in the practice of Knowledge, many people returned to Ashram life and there was a shift from secular tendencies towards ritual and messianic beliefs and practices.'
(Downton)
To the surprise of everyone who had come to the Atlantic City program at the close of 1976, Guru Maharaj Ji appeared in his Krishna costume, a majestic looking robe and crown he had not worn since 1975. The sight of him in his ceremonial best brought premies to their feet singing, as nostalgia for the early days caught them up in feelings of devotion once more.... Again, the guru appeared in his Krishna costume and, again, the old devotional songs were sung. The atmosphere was reminiscent of 1972, as Initiators began to spread the word that the time had come for a renewal of dedication and devotion to "their Lord." Acting as the vanguard for the charismatic revival, they were the first to speak again of the guru as "Messiah," a statement premies apparently wanted to hear, for since then one of the key messages at satsang has been that the guru is indeed the Lord, for premies believe he is capable of transmitting his inner light with such power as to awaken the spirit lying dormant in others.

My point is that the replacement of the word 'Krishna costume' with 'Indian Dress' changes the meaning significantly. Why? Because (although the original quote is supplied in the refs below) the immediate impression is that Rawat just came onstage in ordinary Indian clothes. Hardly suggestive that he was the Lord. Of course the truth of the matter is that Rawat perfectly understood the 'ritual' implications of donning the costume of the Hindu Avatar Lord Krishna. If Momento had used the words 'Krishna Costume' millions of Hindus (and other educated readers) would understand that this alone was a statement by Rawat that he considered himself a worthy Krishna-type figure and was encouraging his audience to believe that (or to encourage them in their dormant beliefs about him as that.) Momento chooses to change the meaning to something quite different. Rawat came on in Indian Dress (maybe a dhoti or something?) and all the silly premies decided that he was the Lord. Yes, it's a subtle innuendo, but it's there... and it's another example of how Downton's reports are paraphrased to project a POV that suggests Rawat did not encourage this stuff. Sure he did.
I have to say that, as someone who witnessed all this, even Downton's reports seem to underplay Rawat's part. I think that this is partly due to the fact that his book is conceived as an analysis of the social phenomenon of 'premies' and not so much about Rawat personally. He repeatedly stresses the observation that Rawat was essentially the projection (creation) of premies expectations. That is fair enough. He is generally uncritical of Rawat's part and sees him as fundamentally sincere. (which I also can go along with). He doesn't talk to Rawat and his analysis of him is restricted to what he gleans through interviewing followers. He even admits he does not know Rawat's motives. eg regarding his lifestyle:
While we can partially explain Guru Maharaj Ji's lifestyle in terms of collective dynamics, another point of view would question why he has accepted the luxuries premies have gladly given him. Several explanations could be offered: that he is following tradition; that he recognizes his followers' need to elevate him to a point where he becomes the ideal to emulate; that he sees no conflict between his lifestyle and his spiritual mission; and that he is not attached to the comforts surrounding him. Of course, there is also the possibility that he is ambitious and materialistic, as so many people believe.
In fact Downton , although drawing many conclusions from his study of premies, is consistently at pains to say how unclear Rawat's part is in the picture actually is, beyond being an icon or spiritual guide:
It is unclear even today whether Guru Maharaj Ji sees his followers as his spiritual equals, who need only reach his level of enlightenment, for he has made contradictory statements on the issue. On the one hand, he has said that when his followers reach the point where they have learned A, B, and C, then he will already have gone to a new level of perfection of D, E, and F.16 This puts him forever beyond the reach of his followers, possibly prolonging their dependence on him for guidance and discouraging their ultimate autonomy.
Downton is a good resource on premies from that time but he is not so lucid about Rawat himself. Actually I think Collier is slightly better on that front.PatW 01:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What efforts made Downton to study Rawat as a person? Did Rawat and Downton talk to each other. Did Downton interview people who were close to Rawat about Rawat? Did Downton study Rawat's speeches? Andries 02:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(ed conf) I don't know. But even if he did not any of these things, what would that be a reason to dismiss him as a source? Or should we remove all your loved Dutch scholars's sources for the same reason? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If the subject of the research is not this article then we should be very careful. Again, I continue to state my opinion that there is no extensive reliable source for this article. Andries 03:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Andries. I have heard that baseless argument way too many times to take it seriously. Please read WP:POINT in case you have forgotten about it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Why baseless? An analogy. If I am a specialized in pressure and a have a peer reviewed physics article about pressure published in a journal about pressure, but I also make some remarks about electromagnetics then there is reason to be cautious about using my remarks about electromagnetics as a reputable source. Andries 03:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you being serious, Andries? Are you saying that we need to be cautious about all the comments made by all the scholars in this article, or any other biographical article in which such sources are used? If that is the case, you may be in a serious need to brush up on basic Wikipedia content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A secondary source is not very reputable if the person who wrote it did not study the subject, because his or her focus of research was something else. To me this sounds very logical and natural. There is no reliable source that has as its main focus Rawat. Andries 03:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Why the explicit attributon for a fact?

The entry now states

According to Mick Brown, Rawat called it "the most significant and holy event in the history of mankind".

We can write that down as a fact. See the letter hereunder

http://ex-premie.org/papers/millenium_invit_letter.htm

Here's the text:

A LETTER FROM GURU MAHARAJ JI

Bonn, Germany

September 31, 1973

Dear premies,

First of all, I would like to tell you about something of great importance to all of us. Because we have realized this beautiful Knowledge which is of great bliss to us all, it is our duty to propagate it to the human race. For it is something they really need.

In the world there is suffering, hatred and dissatisfaction. That fact does not need proof. It is understood by all that the world is passing through a great moment. No one has satisfaction of mind nor can they find the solution to this. The world is looking for the Perfect Master to come and reveal the Perfect Knowledge of God. There is a supreme energy constantly vibrating in everything making it survive and all the Perfect Masters coem to reveal this Knowledge to people. We can attain all materialistic things and still not have peace, for peace lies inside not outside in materialism.

As you all know Millenium '73 is being prepared for now. This festival has been organized by Divine Light Mission each year since 1967, in the memory of the late Satgurudev Shri Hans Ji Maharaji on His birthday. This year the most Holy and significant event in human history will take place in America.

I think that Millenium '73 is a point where we can really get together and enjoy the bliss bliss with all of our borthers and sisters who are premies; and also tell the world that we have received and realized the permanent service of Truth, Consciousness and Bliss which all the world is looking for in one way or manner.

To do this I really need your help. I really need the help of all the premies in all respects; physically, financially and all other ways to make Millenium '73 come off. This is a festival not for you or me. It is for the whole world and maybe the whole universe.

I hereby invite you to this Divine Festival of Peace, Millenium '73 and request all premies to help me financially, physically and spiritually to make the program manifest for all seekers of Truth.

Isn't it about time you all get together and help me bring peace to this Earth?

Blessings to you all,

[Sant Ji Maharaj]

Andries 03:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

First that is a primary source, and second PR not call the Millenium that. Read your own highlight above. So, in this case attribution of needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The secondary source and primary source are nearly identical, so I think that is enough reason to write down things as fact without explicit attribution. Andries 03:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Not nearly identical, as per the material you brought to this page. As such, it needs attribution, because Mr Brown made an obvious blunder. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not see the blunder. Andries 03:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, which I doubt, I cannot help you see it, Andries. Good night. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean confusing "history of mankind" with "human history". That is a minor mistake, not a blunder. It does not change the meaning. Andries 03:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Andries: You still have it wrong: Your edit needs attribution. The edit reads: "Rawat called it the most significant and holy event in human history." Well, he did not. He saif "This year the most Holy and significant event in human history will take place in America"., Obviously Brown made a mistake, so it is not a fact that PR said that the event was such. You keep saying how other mis-characterize sources, but you do not hesitate to that exact thing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not see a mistake in Brown's statement only a very minor difference in wording that leaves the meaning of what Rawat wrote exactly the same. Where is the mistake that Brown made that changes the meaning of Rawat's words? Andries 11:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What Brown said and Rawat said essentially mean the same thing, except Brown didn't mention maybe the whole universe. lol It can be included as a reference attributed to Brown, with a correction using Rawat's own words. Jossi, you don't seem to have any problem using primary sources when they favor Rawat's image and refer only to the last two decades. The point is that Rawat obviously made some fantastical claims about the Millennium festival. Next issue? Or are we gonna argue about this teeny issue for another month while Momento further butchers the article? Sylviecyn

Sylviecyn: Where exactly are we quoting such primary sources in the new version? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

New article

The new article has been written in response to criticism during the GA review. It is by necessity a lot shorter than the "bloated" previous article and it relies on scholars summaries rather than individual quotes. In the past the Rawat article has been destroyed by editors inserting and removing material without regard to BLP, OR, SYN, grammar, context, undue weight, readability etc. As it stands the only independent reviewer, the ever helpful Vassanya, pronounced it "very good" but needing a few changes which have been incorporated. Left alone we can resubmit it for GA status. No doubt some editors may be opposed to this artricle getting GA status and may seek to undermine this article by inserting material as previously. I hope not. I think this is now an article we can all live with.Momento 03:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the bio proposal does not stay close to the sourcs. Andries 03:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There are too many issues with the bio-proposal to go through. In the current version there are only few issues and few places (if any) where the articles does not stay close to sources. I am not going to throw away all my previous effort to improve a version that is significantly worse than the current version. Andries 03:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I will give two examples from the bio proposal lead why I think that the bio-proposal is bad. There are so many issue that I do not think that it makes sense to use the bio-proposal as a basis for further improvement when compared to the current version that has far fewer issues.

"Rawat was frequently criticised by religious scholars on the basis of his age, his behaviour and his teachings.[6][7]"

Unnecessarily vague. Current version is much clearer and more specific and above all mentions the most commonly made and persistent criticisms. It is true that Rawat was criticized for his age but this is clearly not a persistent criticism. [User:Andries|Andries]] 04:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"Rawat's desire to manifest his own vision brought him into conflict with his mother and family,"

Does not stay close to the sources. The current version stays much closer to the sources Does not represent a NPOV view but only the view of follower Geaves who wrote the entry in the book edited by Melton. Current version does follow NPOV. Andries 04:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Andries 04:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Unneccesarily vague?!?! What could be more specific. Your lede doesn't even have a reference for its conclusion. And you say it doesn't stay close to the source?!?! The lede says "'Rawat's desire to manifest his own vision brought him into conflict with his mother and family". J. Gordon Melton, Christopher Partridge say - As Maharaji began to grow older and establish his teachings worldwide he increasingly desired to manifest his own vision of development and growth. This conflict resulted in a split between Maharaji and his family, ostensibly caused by his mother's inability to accept Maharaji's marriage to an American follower rather than the planned traditional arranged marriage".

No, this was written by follower Geaves, not by Melton and partrigde and it differs significantly from what other more objective observers have written. Andries 04:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The article deserves a NPOV warning for this reason alone. Andries 05:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's Downton - The end of 1973 saw Guru Maharaj Ji breaking away from his mother and his Indian past. He declared himself the sole source of spiritual authority in the Mission. And, unlike some gurus who have come to this country and have easternized their followers, he became more fully westernized, which premies interpreted as an attempt to integrate his spiritual teachings into our culture. The conflict with his mother became more intense when his brother, Raja Ji, married Claudia Littman, a German citizen living in the United States. No longer wishing to be bound by the Indian tradition of marrying within one's own caste, Guru Maharaj Ji approved his brother's marriage, to the very great displeasure of his mother, who was still strongly tied to Indian customs. When Guru Maharaj Ji himself decided to marry outside of his caste, his mother became upset because she had not been asked to approve the marriage and, when it occurred, she was not invited to attend because communication between them had already broken down.Momento 05:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I had already written this on the talk page, but you dismissed my comments then. Now because of your bio-proposal, you expect me to re-start the discussion again for this and many, many other issues that have already been solved to a great in extent in the current version. I can make better use of my time. Andries 04:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You should have contributed months ago. Despite repeated requests for help with a shorter version as recommended by the GA review, you have not made a single suggestion or edit. The old article was described as - "too lengthy" by Smee and "bloated, or simply too long" by Vassyana. Now that all the work is done to create a shorter article that Vassanya says is "very good", you decide to get involved.Momento 04:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I had voiced my objections already before. Andries 05:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Momento, you've been working on this draft for less than two months. So, your remark to Andries, who, btw has done extensive research and work on the original version, is a bit over-the-top. This article is still a work in progress. You don't get to revert an entire article just to replace it with your personally-written-preferred version, based on what one anonymous editor, Vassyana, says about the old one. What's the rush? Does someone around here need to win a Great Article award or something in a hurry?  :-) Sylviecyn 18:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

When I have to choose between working on a reasonable but somewhat long article and a short but very flawed article then I choose the first. I will continue to do so. Andries 04:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Look forward to your comments here.Momento 04:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree of course that there is merit in your aim to write a shorter article, but I object to a short article that is significantly more inaccurate. Andries 04:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Happy to discuss any errors. If we want GA status we can't have any inaccuracies.Momento 04:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am not prepared to use your bio-proposal as a basis for further improvement for reasons that must be clear by now. Andries 04:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you gave two reasons both of which are provably incorrect. Provide a legitimaste reason and we can all discuss it.Momento 04:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how you want to shorten the long, old version. I am unwilling to discuss the many inaccuracies and mistakes and NPOV problems in your bio-proposal. Andries 05:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Momento, please re-consider restoring the previous version, and let Andries make his comments on the proposal, so that these can be addressed. We want a stable article, and not one that can be spuriously challenged. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Andries: Editors have been working to improve the article based on third party opinions. The burden is on you, not on those that worked on the article in response to the reviews made by third parties. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the old version was the result of many years of work and intense debate. Not so with the new version. Andries 05:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I will request formal mediation, because I do not know how to reach even the beginning of a compromise when we both do not want to discuss each other's highly diverging versions because we both think it is a waste of time to discuss flaws in each other's versions. Andries 05:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

1. The previous version was not your version, and was shattered by the GA review.
2. Mediation is not an alternative to work hard and collaborate as others have done.
3. Mediation only comes after you make an effort to collaborate, which you have not
4. See WP:POINT, which you continue to bust. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I am note defending the bio proposal, or the previous version (I keep my opinion of these two versions to myself). But I would argue that editor's efforts to respond to the GA review should be welcome. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Not shattered. It needed some improvements, but Momento has not done so except in size

2. To say that I did not work hard on this article is utterly untrue and borders on the ridiculous. I am not willing to repeat work that I did in the previous years without good reason.

3. See 2

4 I do not understand this.

I am willing to respond to the GA review, but I am unwilling to use a very flawed version of the article as a basis for improvement when a reasoable version is available. Andries 05:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The GA response by Smee and Vassanya came two months ago. I declared my intention to address all the issues they brought up and asked all editors to help and the main issue was the old article was "bloated" and simply "too long". The slimmed down proposal has been discussed and edited constantly since then. And reviewed several times by Vassanya, who is clearly independent. The fact that Andries waits until now to make his opinion heard is unacceptable and no excuse for delaying this over due overhaul. Read the new article Andries and then suggest improvements. Please note that in order to get GA status the article has to remain clear and concise. If anyone feels some material has to be added, decide what can be removed and discuss it here.Momento 05:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

So what? You plunged into a rapid, two month rewrite, slashing important and good content in order to reduce the number of words in the article. You ignored the sensibilites of editors like Andries who has put years of work into the article. You assumed that everybody was in agreement with your new draft, and when objections have been raised, you also ignored those, and for all intents and purposes disallowed (through reversion and irrational argument) anyone but yourself and Rumiton from making any substantial edits to the new draft. I told you on more than one occasion that your draft wasn't ready for prime time, meaning it's still a draft. Don't you think that's just a little bit rude? I do. Please revert the article until concensus is reached. You are not the editor-in-chief of this article so stop behaving that way please. Other people around here are not your copy editors! Sylviecyn 10:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This exchange is concerning, as it shows some people here as if they are happy to have an article that they can complain about it ad nauseum, because maybe they have come to realize that there is no possibility within the framework of WP content policies to have an article that is of their liking. As I said before my personal opinions is that I am not 100% sure that this version is better than the previous version, but nonetheless I have to accept to respect the work of others that are attempting to respond to the needs for change established by independent reviewers. Given the original review and the subsequent reviews, it maybe the case that this new version responds to most of the concerns raised in these reviews, so it would make more sense to continue working from this version on, rather that from the old version. Regardless which version is used as a basis, it will require collaboration and people being engaged productively, rather than popping-in once in a while to raise objections and not work to resolve them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I did make several objections here to the new bio-proposal but they were ignored and dismissed. Then Momento cannot expect that I have any inclination to use the bio-proposal as a basis for futher improvement. Andries 16:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana was unable to give an informed opinion of the bio-proposal because Momento blundered with the citation, e.g. confusing the author Melton with the follower Geaves. Andries 16:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not "complain about it ad nauseum" about the old version. Should I repeat and repeat my objections to the bio-proposal. I had repeatedly warned Momento that implementing the bio-proposal without addressing my main concerns would lead to reverts without any further explanation. Andries 16:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

As you know very well reverting repeatedly without explanation will result on editors getting dinged for editwarring, or the article being protected. With that understanding, could you please restate your objections so that these can be addressed? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

why should I repeat and repeat my objections if they are are ignored and dismissed by Momento? I can make far less and far les serious objections to the old version. What Momento should have done is condensing the old version and nothing more. He should not have made a complete re-write that is far worse than the old version and expect that contributors will do all the effort to improve his flawe re-write. Again, I am unwilling to go through all my objections one by one because that it is too much unnecessary work. Some objections that I had already repeated and repeated but were dismissed and ignored by Momento and that I hereby repeat are removal of scholarly properly attributed quotes by Lans, Derks, Kranenborg and Melton. Andries 16:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting dizzy. On one hand SylvieCyn complains I did a "rapid rewrite" and yet it took "two months". SylvieCyn claims that I disallowed anyone else to make edits and yet I greeted SylvieCyn edits with "I'm going to give A+ to SylvieCyn". Andries complains that I quote from J. Gordon Melton's New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities and then complains that I omitted Melton. Kranenborg's unique reference to the Peace Bomb remains, his superfulous comments about the split and Rawat going on independtly are better covered by others. And, if I remember, Andries' translation of Lans & Derks was badly flawed and strangely edited. Yes, new material has been added in the new article. Important comments on "millennial beliefs", Rawat becoming "an emancipated minor", "shift from secular tendencies towards ritual and messianic beliefs and practices" in the late 70s, the description of Guru being "an embodiment of God on Earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration' are just a few of the important facts missing from the old article. I've contributed as much as anyone to the old article and the new article is an appropriate and much needed response to the scathing criticism of the old one by independent reviewers. No one's good work has been lost, the new article uses almost all the sources from the old. Momento 21:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Momento, rewriting an article as controversial as this one in two months, in the face of years of previous work on the original, is relatively rapid, imo. The edits which you praised me for were only copy edits to improve sentence structure, punctuation, and grammar. I was quite careful not to add or subtract any content that was controversial because you've been known to revert others' edits a lot. It doesn't make for a cooperative and happy writing collaboration. The many edits done on the draft were mostly by yourself and Rumiton. I'm not disputing all of the effort the article took for you to complete. It was a lot of work, but it's not a collaboration of all the editors involved in the Rawat article, and no concensus was reached about the draft article going live on the main page. Sylviecyn 12:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Momento, I need some more time to give a reply to your comments that is filled with inaccuracies, and misunderstandings.

1. Momento the entry about Elan Vital in the book "New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities" was not written by Melton who only wrote the foreword. I have seen the book. The entry was written by follower Geaves as I now write for at least the 3rd time. I had already written to you that you made a mistake in the citation, but instead of correcting the citation, you dismissed or ignored my comments

2. Derks and Van der Lans, there was no bad translation, because the original article by Derks and Van der Lans was in English. Some contents by Van Der Lans (Derks was not a co-author) was translated.

3. Kraneborg's reference to the peace bomb satsang is not unique. Hummel also made a reference to it. (This is probably the first time that I write this down)

4. The statement of Maharaji's claim to be "an embodiment of God on Earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration' is both present in the old long version and the new re-write, but in the old version it is properly and explicitly attributed to Melton. In the new re-write this is unfortunately not the case and I think the re-write misrepresents Melton's writings, because it omits the fact that Melton wrote that Prem Rawat himself made this claim. This is totally unacceptable taking into account that I repeatedly warned Momento here not to do so and taking into account that an accurate version is already available.

5. The shift from secular tendencies towards ritual and messianic beliefs and practices" is indeed missing in the old version and present in the re-write. I will add it to the old version. amended. 22:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)~

6. Further I agree with Sylviecyn that the re-write was hasty, taking into account that the old long version took years of intense and lengthy debate and intense efforts by many editors in sourcing and citation

Andries 16:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC) 17:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Is Cagan's book considered a reliable source?

Sorry if this has been discussed before but could someone tell me if Cagan's book 'Peace is Possible' is considered a reliable source for Wikipedia? By her own admission she did not interview Rawat, and she has not contacted to my knowledge any of Rawat's critics with first hand knowledge of some of the more unsavoury parts of his life. I ask because much of the text in the new article is sourced to her book without being qualified as 'according to Cagan...'. --John Brauns 22:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Cagan's book is considered a reliable source but it has not been used as a scholarly source rather as a source of dates and personal info not found in scholarly material.Momento 22:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

An RfC was filed in this regard, and Cagan's book was deemed a RS. In any case, Cagan's book has been used as a sources only for these:

• Name of spouse and children
• Attended school in Deradun
• Becoming an emancipated minor
• Moving to Florida with his family
• Use of satellite broadcasts for dissemination of his message
• Pilot ratings

The other uses can be deleted, as there are other sources already listed: Refs 38, 39, 41 can be deleted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Jossi, you are again and again and again distorting the RFC. You make it quite difficult for me to assume your good faith. In the RFC Cagan's book was not considered a non-reputable only because the book was published by a company that has published only one book. Other factors were not considered. Andries 08:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not. You are. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, it will be clear that we are not coming a millimeter closer on this argument in the dispute, but from a practical point of view, you are right in this dispute, the non-reputable source written by Andrea Cagan is used only to source innocent undisputed statements. Andries 16:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

References 38= relates to date of event, 39= moving to Miami and 41= use of 707. Please don't remove.Momento 00:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Now you may understand why it is necessary to have the ref inline with the text that it is supporting, rather than at the end of a sentence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Unless the text is contentious or completely unexpected, why interrupt the reading and visual flow with a reference number. Most readers exhibit a certain amount of good faith and don't need external verification for an innocuous fact i.e. the Atlantic City event happened on Dec 20th as per Cagan. If they're curious they can check at the end of the sentence or paragraph. When text is included in the reference, it is self explanatory no matter where it appears but when only page numbers are given, the casual reader is none the wiser as to which particular fact is refered to - Atlantic City, December or 20th. Mind you, it's hard to find an article on Wiki that is as heavily referenced as this one.Momento 03:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The reference numbers don't interrupt the reading and visual flow. That is how non-fiction is written. It's standard practice. One cannot expect a reader to intuit and interpret which prose is attributable to which source. It's inproper attribution.

Btw, if Cagan lists the Atlantic City program as December 20, 1976, then she's mistaken. The program occurred on December 19, 1976, according to quotes in The Living Master and other sources. December 20, 1976 is the day Rawat held the Coordinator's Conference in Atlantic City. Does Cagan's book provide source material listed in the form of footnotes and/or end notes? Did she interview her subject? Did he or his organization(s) approve the final draft by fact-checking it? If not, then no one, including Cagan, Rawat, EV, nor TPRF can attest to the reliability of event dates or any information assumed to be facts in Peace is Possible. Sylviecyn 12:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

We have used many sources in this article, and we have found what some editors consider mistakes in most of them. We report what these sources say, period. If we find better sources for specific assertion or facts, then we use the better one. If there are significant competing views, we report both. That is the way we write articles in WP. ≈ jossi ≈

(talk) 13:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Cagan's book Peace is Possible, must meet higher standards than any other source material because it was published this year on approval by Prem Rawat. While it's not published as an authorized biography, The Prem Rawat Foundation endorsed the book on its website and via a press release. It's been given rave reviews by Rawat's followers as the truth about Rawat's life, yet, it's obvious it wasn't fact-checked by the publisher or by anyone from Rawat's organizations. It appears there are no citations or end notes in the book that one can check for accuracy. The correct date for the Atlantic City program is in Divine Light Mission's own book of Maharaji's quotes called The Living Master. I'm not nitpicking about the Atlantic City program date, but because of that small mistake, I am seriously questioning the Cagan book as a reliable source and can only wonder if there are other inaccuracies. Because Mighty River Press is owned by a student of Rawat, and Cagan's book is the first book put out by that publishing house, it's makes it even less reliable and more of a primary source than a secondary source, imo. Sylviecyn 03:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

On approval by Prem Rawat? Where did you get that? The Prem Rawat Foundation made a press release about the fact that a biography was published. So what? Rave reviews, great! What that has to do with this article? The book is widely available and listed in the Library of Congress (note that self-published book are not accepted by the LC). A book by a widely published writer is most certainly a reliable sources, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it, I am afraid. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. I don't "want to do anything about" the book, but you ought to know that there's nothing special about a book or anything else being listed in the Library of Congress. Just about everything is archived there, good, bad, correct, incorrect. It's the research arm of the U.S. Congress. Being listed in the Library of Congress doesn't make a piece of work credible. What makes Cagan's "biography" of Rawat different than her other books is that the other books were done in collaberation with the bio-subjects. She didn't even interview Rawat for this book. And TPRF did endorse the book, completel with mistakes, libel, and all. Sylviecyn 15:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, I took SylvieCyn to be the authority on the Atlantic City event since SylvieCyn wrote - "I changed "Atlanta" to the correct city where the December 20, 1976 program was held which is Atlantic City, New Jersey. I attended that program, and in addition to that program earmarking Maharaji's revival of himself as the Lord of the Universe, dressing in Krishna costum, it also was a sort of a belated birthday party for for him". So the mistake's not Cagan's, it's mine for confusing the event and the conference dates and SylvieCyn for confirming it.Momento 04:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't take me to be the authority on specific dates of Maharaji programs that took place 31 years ago. I repeated the date as stated in the article based on Cagan as the reliable source! I later discovered Cagan's error. What kind of circular reasoning is this then? The subject of the discussion is Cagan as Rawat's authorized or endorsed biographer, and whether her facts can be trusted as reliable. Obviously, not. Sylviecyn 11:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong again SylvieCyn, but don't apoloigise. Cagan didn't say the event was on Dec 20, just that Rawat was in AC on Dec 20, it was you who said you were at the program on Dec 20.Momento 22:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing to apologize for. Sylviecyn 15:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert wars accomplish nothing

Revert wars accomplish nothing. Articles in WP are edited by those that want to put the necessary effort and commitment to do so. Not by those that stand on the fence. A review of the previous version (that is the basis for the current version, btw) required a re-write, which some editors took upon themselves to do in response. I see nothing wrong with that and their effort should be supported rather than dismissed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I took the time to re-read both articles in their entirety, an I find it curious that Andries thinks that the old version is superior to the new, shortened version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have given some examples where I found Momento's re-write completely unacceptable and greatly inferior to the original, but as usual, my comments are dismissed by Momento. This is no collaboration. This is a one-man show pretending to be open for suggestions and improvements. Andries 16:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Bingo!PatW 19:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have shown intense effort and commitment by trying to improve the old long version for many years and providing many sources. I have not been sitting on the fence at all. The re-write is worse than the original. Keep it in draft as long as it worse as the original. Momento, I hereby want to thank you for your efforts and I suggest you keep on trying until your rewrite is better than the original. Then we can talk about your using your re-write. I do not accept it that Momento is wasting all my years of effort and commitment. Andries 16:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You are making an argument that does not stand the reality of the article's history. The previous version was worked on as hard by Momento and myself for the last two years, and yet neither Momento, nor I are asserting WP:OWN as you are doing. No one expected such a harsh review of the version that we so hard worked on for so long, but that is a reality that we cannot easily dismiss. Does the new version loses some of our collective hard work? Sure it does. Do I like the new version better than the old? I am not sure, but that is not the question. The question is: does this new version responds to the reviews made? And if it does not, are you willing to fix it or not? Dismissing the work of others does not pay off in WP, and you know it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

The question is whether the old long version is better than Momento's re-write is the most important question. I am unwilling to use a bad version as a basis for improvement when a reasonable good version that just needs a little condensing and removals is available at our fingertips. I do not want Momento to dismiss our years of work with his flawed re-write. I read the review and I agreed with it, but Momento's re-write makes things worse, except in length. Andries 16:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}. You read the review, agreed with it, and did nothing. At least respect the work of those that care enough to do something about it. Your argument and edit history since the review says it all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please fix it before replacing the old long version. That is the write (right) order. I did something (giving comments here), but all my comments were dismissed by Momento so I stopped doing that. At least some of my comments on the old version were treated seriously and not dismissed with flimsy or erroneous arguments. Andries 17:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Complains are noted, but complains do not move us forward. Hard work and initiative does. G2G, see you later. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I worked very hard on this article for years and you know it. I do not want my and other people's years of hard work to be wasted with a very flawed re-write. Andries 17:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be polite to email some former editors to see what they think. Since it's conception this article has obviously benefited from a large number of editors contributions, and it seems extremely unfair to replace it wholesale with largely one man's version, especially since former editors like Andries, myself and Sylviecyn (who just happen to be the ones currently putting some time as of late) are neither happy with the re-write or most particularly, the way our input has been vigorously resisted and denied by Momento. How about the dozens of other editors from the past who simply do not have the time or expectation to have to check all the time to see if their work has been expunged? I don't feel that Momento is showing them much good faith or respect. It just feels offensive the way he disregards others and seems to express delight in doing so. I'm not sure it's constructive to accuse people who you characterise as complainers of not working hard or showing initiative either. It's immensely hard work arguing points with someone as resolute as Momento. We've probably worked just as hard arguing over key issues as Momento has re-writing the article! PatW 18:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I filed a request for formal mediation with Andries, Jossi, Momento, Sylviecyn as parties. I will add PatW. Andries 19:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat Please write down there whether you agree with mediation or strike your name there from the mediation. Andries 19:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Which I have dully rejected as premature, and disruptive of the current effort being made. 20:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have striked you out as a party in the mediation. I do not think it is premature as I see not a trace of a compromise in sight. Andries 20:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You cannot do that.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If you do not want to be a party, then that is your choice. I put you there as a party and I can also remove you if you do not want to participate in mediation. Andries 20:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No you cannot. Mediation requires the agreement of all parties involved. Not only those that suit you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If I strike you then you are not a party anymore in the mediation and then I do not need your agreement anymore. Andries 20:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I will let the MedCom address your obviously misunderstanding. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I read the instruction and you are right and I am wrong. All parties in the dispute. Not only all parties in the mediation. I am sorry for this misunderstanding. Andries 22:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Andries, what happened to Rumiton and Vassanya?Momento 21:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I will inform them too, because they are also involved in the dispute. Andries 22:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have listed and informed Vassyana because he is also involved in the dispute. I could not find proof here that Rumiton (talk · contribs) is involved in this particular dispute, so I have not (yet) listed him. If you find such proof then point to it and I will list him as a party for this mediation case. Andries 22:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I found proof that Rumiton is involved in this disputed so I listed him and informed him. Andries 09:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Important questions

1. What is wrong with the new version? Be specific and concise.
2. How can those problems be repaired? Be specific and brief.
3. What is missing from the new version? Be specific and brief.
4. What reliable secondary sources report the missing information? Be specific and provide exact references.

If the new version is problematic, please discuss what is wrong with it in a productive manner. Also, for those claiming the new version is inferior, could you please explain why in a brief and specific manner? Cheers! Vassyana 22:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

1. See some examples on this talk page hereunder that I copied from elsewhere. I consider it too much work to make an exhaustive list.

2. By reverting to the old version

3. In general, accuracy in citations and attribution of opinions

4. Hummel and Kranenborg, Derks and Van Der Lans. See the old version.

Andries 22:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana here are the non-exhaustive examples that you requested in point that 1. that I copied from this talk page. Please do read the talk page before asking questions that I already answered several times. Again all my objections can be fixed by reverting to the old version.

1. Momento the entry about Elan Vital in the book "New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities" was not written by Melton who only wrote the foreword. I have seen the book. The entry was written by follower Geaves as I now write for at least the 3rd time. I had already written to you that you made a mistake in the citation, but instead of correcting the citation, you dismissed or ignored my comments. Using the biased follower Geaves as the only source for the rift in the lead section is a gross violation of NPOV. His view signficantly differs form the point of view of more objective researchers.

2. Derks and Van der Lans, there was no bad translation, because the original article by Derks and Van der Lans was in English. The discussion of the mind by Derks and Van der Lans is missing. Some contents by Van Der Lans (Derks was not a co-author) was translated from Dutch.

3. Kraneborg's reference to the peace bomb satsang is not unique. Hummel also made a reference to it. (This is probably the first time that I write this down)

4. The statement of Maharaji's claim to be "an embodiment of God on Earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration' is both present in the old long version and the new re-write, but in the old version it is properly and explicitly attributed to Melton. In the new re-write this is unfortunately not the case and I think the re-write misrepresents Melton's writings, because it omits the fact that Melton wrote that Prem Rawat himself made this claim. This is totally unacceptable taking into account that I repeatedly warned Momento here not to do so and taking into account that an accurate version is already available.

5. Further I agree with Sylviecyn that the re-write was hasty, taking into account that the old long version took years of intense and lengthy debate and intense efforts by many editors in sourcing and citation

6. The lead section should mention and specify the most common and persistent criticisms (i.e. lifestyle and lack of substance in Teachings) The old version does this very well. The new version mention is vague and mentions outdated and somewhat uncommon criticisms.

7. Missing in the re-write is Rawat's request surrender to the guru. (source Kranenborg)

Andries 16:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC) 17:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. These points are easily fixable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Melton's New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities. It was edited by Christopher Partridge (Editor), the foreword written by J. Gordon Melton. The section on "Elan Vital" was written by Ron Geaves, who is a scholar of religion and chair of a prestigious university in the UK. The fact that he is a long-time student of PR is not relevant if properly attributed, as it was done in the new version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It was and is not properly cited let alone attributed in the lead section in the re-write and even if it is properly attributed then we should also include the view of others for NPOV. Andries 23:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Easily fixable, Andries. In invite you to make proposals in the Bio proposal page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, if they are so easily fixable then please Jossi or Momento fix them all first before replacing the old version. Andries 23:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not editing that proposal or this article, only making minor edits here and there, or providing sources. It is you that need to engage others in making the proposed version better. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no added value in trying to fix a flawed version when a reasonable version is already available that needs only some removals and condensing. I would fully support replacing the old version with a better re-write, but Momento's bio-prososal has still too many flaws to be considered a better than the old version. I have listed some of the flaws of Momento's rewrite hereabove, and some of them can be fixed quite easily. I am however willing to make a draft re-write myself, based on the old version, but of course this will take me a tremendous amount of time and effort. Andries 23:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

<<outdent>> Then respond to Vassyana's questions and hopefully other editors will engage in addressing your concerns. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I did respond to them. Andries 23:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Until now I am the only one who responded to Vassyana's questions. Andries 23:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Then give some time to these editors that want to address your concerns, to do so. I am taking a break now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I added some more comments. Andries 23:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Responding to Andries' points: 1. How is the citation lacking? It does not imply that Melton was the author of the article cited.
2. What facts are missing from the discussion of mind? Is anything misrepresented in the revised version?
3. Can you provide a full reference to the additional material? Does it explain anything new or is it simply an additional source?
4.What does Melton say that differs significantly from the revised version? What makes this point of belief so particular that we must emphasize that Rawat said it? Why for this part of belief but not for every other point?
5.. This is not a helpful criticism.
6. The new version reports the same criticism as the old version, only in considerably more neutral language. A lede is a place to report an overview, not detail specific criticisms, especially not with loaded and subjective language.
7. This can be easily resolved.
What additional specific criticisms did you have? Vassyana 00:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

ad 1. A citation should mention the author, mentioning the editor of the whole book is optional. E.g. when a newspaper is cited we write down the author of the article not the chief editor of the newspaper. I have seen the book. Melton is not even the editor, but only wrote the foreword. Amazon may however incorrectly mention him as the editor. This is not the first time that I noticed a mistake in Amazon.com The author is the biased follower Geaves, not the relatively impartial Melton. This is essential. This is the 4th or 5th time that I write this. From now on I will revert any version that contains this blunder without further discussion.

ad 2. Again, the discusion of the mind in the DLM by Van der Lans and Derks is missing See the old version. Yes, most of the scholarly quotes (e.g Melton, Kranenborg) are misrepresented in the re-write. See the old version for correct representation

ad 3. Reinhart Hummel Indische Mission und neue Frömmigkeit im Westen. Religiöse Bewegungen in westlichen Kulturen, Stuttgart 1980, ISBN 3-17-005609-3, pages 75, 78 Hummel quotes the Peace Bomb Satsang and provides more information than Kranenborg. To be fair to Momento, this probably the first time that I write this down, but Momento's claim that Kranenborg's reference to the Peace Bomb Satsang is unique is untrue and this was originally a reply to Momento's claim.

ad 4. Compare the old version with the new version. This article is about Rawat so its focus should be on what Rawat personally did, said and claimed not what other people around him believed about Rawat. I have always tried to make this clear to the reader wherever the source made this clear.

ad 5. No, I admit, but it helps to explain that and why the re-write is inferior.

ad 6. A lead section is to inform readers quickly It cannot inform readers if it is not a bit specific. Staying unnecessarily vague does not inform.

ad 7. Then solve it. I am waiting.

Again I am unwilling to give an exhaustive list of criticisms because this is a lot of unnecessary work when all my criticicisms can be resolved in 1 second by reverting to the old version.

Andries 00:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(re 1) The book was edited by Christopher H Partridge. Entries were written by may scholars. Ron Geaves wrote the entry on Elan Vital. I see no problem with this whatsoever, as it can be easily disclosed in the article. Somehow you are under the wrong impression that scholars do not have biases. Of course they do. And that includes your favorite Dutch scholars, Andries. But we still cite them, aren't we?

(re 2) That could be looked into. I thing that the new version does a better job to summarize these viewpoints, but it can esaly be reviewed and fixed, one by one.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(re 3) We can summarize the competing views about that satsang. Not a problem.

(re 4) No, you are wrong. We only report what secondary sources say about the subject. If Downton says that people believe this and that, we report this and that/. If the Times report that his mother did this and that and thought this and that of him, we report that. Are you really that confused about how we write articles in WP?

(re 5) A lead section needs to be neutral.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

ad 4. Then report accurately what sources have stated which includes mentioning who claimed/said/believed/did what. In this case the fact that Melton wrote that Rawat made the claim is missing and as such I think that the re-write misrepresents Melton. It was not only a claim made by his followers, according to Melton. Apart from that, Downton mostly wrote about the DLM, not so much about Rawat, so the summary of his writing should mostly be in that article. Andries 07:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Andries' points-

1. My citation of - J. Gordon Melton, Christopher Partridge (Eds.), New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities pp.201-202, Oxford University Press, USA (2004) ISBN 978-0195220421 - in the lede is 100% correct and Downton agrees with it.

2. As I prefaced, "if memory serves me" but it was Hummel you mistranslated to suit your POV. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Divine_Light_Mission#Hummel

3. Hummel's reference to the Peace Bomb is not mentioned in the old article, so I cannot have omitted it. Kranenborg's is the only one and remains.

4. You haven't warned me, the old cite doesn't contain the original text and I was using it in a different way.

5. First people complain I'm putting too much work into the new version, then that I haven't put enough. The rewrite contains many new important facts missing from the old article - the comments on "millennial beliefs", Rawat becoming "an emancipated minor", "shift from secular tendencies towards ritual and messianic beliefs and practices" in the late 70s, the fact that Rawat used the 707 etc.

6. Rawat's age, his behaviour and his teachings are the most persistant criticisms as stated in the lede.

Andries, like all other editors, was informed and invited numerous times to contribute to the proposal but didn't make one edit or comment in the talk page. As Andries suggests, doing a rewrite takes "a tremendous amount of time and effort". I was happy to make the changes suggested in the GA review. The new article is vastly better because of it.Momento 00:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Your behavior here is typical. You invite people to contribute and make improvement and if they do so you dismiss all of them. Andries 00:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Momento, If your intention was to finally get more feedback to your bio-proposal then please consider your mission succeeded by now. Please do not try again to get feedback in such a way. Andries 01:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

ad 1. No, erroneous, as I have explained at least four times elsewhere.

ad 2. My translation of Hummel was initially incomplete which I later corrected and for which I apologized. That is not a valid reason now to exclude contents.

ad 3. True, I agree. Momento's claim that Kranenborg reference to the Peace Bomb Satsang is unique is however not true, because Hummel referred to it too.

ad 4. I did warn you not to freely interpret the sources here Talk:Prem_Rawat#The_day_is_coming_soon, but you did not pay heed to my warning

5. I admit that your re-write has some new and good sourced contents. I will add that to the old version. I have already done so for the "shift from secular tendencies towards ritual and messianic beliefs and practices". The rest of the good sourced contents that you mention has now followed. Rawat becoming "an emancipated minor" is sourced to Andrea Cagan's book which I do not consider a reputable source, so I will not copy it from the rewrite. Same for Rawat's usage of the Boeing 707. amended Andries 09:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

ad 6, What do you mean? that he is still criticized for his age? If so where? :Andries 08:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC) amended

Cagan's book is most certainly a reliable source for these facts. You keep dismissing the RfC comments and Wikipedia guidelines. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You keep misrepresenting the RFC. Andries 16:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not. You are. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Vassayana you have invited us to essentially compare the original article point by point with Momento's re-write. I just sat down with the intention of doing that. Immediately I am struck with the daunting enormity of the task, as others have also noted and objected to.
Since the existing article is a work representing the more collaborative work of a greater number of people than the new article (for the reasons we have explained ie. Momento largely resists others input) it occurs to me that rightly the onus is not so much on other former editors to provide an exhaustive analysis of what you ask ie:
1. What is wrong with the new version?
2. How those can problems be repaired?
3. What is missing from the new version?
4. What reliable secondary sources report the missing information?
But the onus surely should be on Momento to do that job in reverse. i.e. he should, at this stage, explain why he has omitted the many missing specific things from the old article , point by point, and also be prepared to discuss those decisions here before we all agree that it is better.
I am not suggesting that his article is entirely an uncollaborative work or entirely worse. I have made a few changes there myself which remain; and I support the idea of a better, more concise improved article. However I strongly feel that, especially in the light of Andries' objections, (which I'm sure would be shared by other past editors) Momento should be the one who owes all parties some exhaustive summary (at this stage) to explain exactly what was wrong with specific things about the old version, what he has exactly omitted from the original version and what existing reliable secondary sources he has chosen to no longer represent and why. As a compromise maybe he could do this. Otherwise we are probably doomed to lengthy nitpicks about various things. This is historically what we have been doing as of late and it really has only resulted in mistrust as Momento seems to use agruments on various Talkpages as an exercise in wasting other peoples time.
If you remain seriously convinced that we should indeed exhaustively compare the articles then you will need patience, because that will take a very long time. Just a quick look now immediately brought up another question for me, relating to my recent reversion of the words 'Indian Dress' (on the new article) to the original 'Krishna Costume'. (see my justification for this reversion under 'The art of understatement (by Momento)' above.) I now notice that in the original, the word 'Krishna' links to a Wiki article on Krishna. Not only did Momento replace Downton's important words 'Krishna costume' to the less meaningful 'indian dress' but he lost that very helpful link too. Every time I look I see more examples of what is wrong. Why should we suddenly be tasked with having to rejustify, at great length, what was presumably once deemed perfectly 'right' like in this example? Can Momento show us where there is some discussion relating to the replacement of the word "Krishna Costume' and it's link? Why should we be burdened with unneccessary hard detective work because of his disregard for the work of others? I would strongly argue that the onus is squarely on Momento to exhaustively explain every little change like this rather than we are given the unenviable job of clearing up his messes. As a result of the mistrust generated by his single-handed opportunism he has brought this task neccesarily upon himself. His decision to actually act and replace the article now, has simply drawn into focus the existing questions that he has long ignored but should have addressed as he went along.PatW 11:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Gee PatW, you make it seem as if you haven't had two months of constant encouragement to discuss and contribute to the new article.Momento 21:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Responses

(Andries) #

1. I do not see why Geaves cannot be attributed as the author of the specific article.
2. That is a non-answer. General references to the "old version" are insufficient. What is the specific information missing? What are the specific references for that information?
3. Is there a published English translation of this source? What is the additional information this source provides?
4. Please go back and provide a reply to the questions I posed. You responded with a general statement of position, but did not address my specific questions. Again, general references to the "old version" are insufficient.
5. Actually, it does nothing to explain why the rewrite is inferior. The number of active editors and the time it takes to do rewrites will always be variable on Wikipedia. That years and a large number of editors worked on an article does not mean future changes must reflect that time and group size. This is a wiki. A single person can rewrite an article in days that took years and several editors to build, and it's supposed to be that way. Other can always repair any damage by that one editor. Arguments about the time spent by a number of previous editors is fundamentally flawed when discussing a wiki. It's a red herring that has no relevance instead of addressing the specific content at hand.
6. Actually, a lede is to provide a summary of an article. The article itself is expected to inform the reader about the topic. Regardless, using loaded language presented as fact is far outside the bounds of a neutral point of view.
7. {{sofixit}}

On a final note, reverting to the old version fixes nothing. The old version is a complete mess, especially in comparison. The new version is not perfect. However, I find the old version to be filled with bias and poorly written. I utterly fail to see how replacing one flawed version with another version that is as equally flawed, or worse, fixes anything at all. Why not work on fixing the well-written and organized, if still flawed, revised version instead of trying to put back a poorly-written and organized version? Thanks again for your replies. Vassyana 19:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I agree. Please fix it I am waiting.

2. I am not prepared to do all the work that proponents of the new version should should do. Here is the old version [4]. Please compare that with the new version [5] and check the differences and you will see that the old version is in nearly all cases superior in providing context, accuracy of citations and attribution of opinions. E.g in presenting the writings by

a. Kranenborg about surrender is missing,

b Haan about the battle against the mind is missing

c. Melton about Rawat's claim to be an embodiment of God is distorted,

d. Hummel about Rawat's claim to be the incarnation of the eternal guru Maharaj Ji is missing

e. Derks, Lans about the mind is missing

Why should I even bother to have a further look or give more comments when the re-write is so much worse than the old version?

If you disagree then give an exhaustive list of points where the old version is worse than the new version. Please be specific and give full secondary source references and full citations. Please write what should be done to improve the old version to make it better to at least the standard of the re-write. Please also list of contents what is missing in the old version and be specific and provide secondary source.

3. Not yet. Give me some time

4. See 2

6. I do not think that Momento is a skilled writer. Neither am I, but at least what I write in the article here is being corrected and amended by many people

7. Please fix it in the new version I am waiting

Andries 20:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC) amended to give more details of objections

Vassyana wrote,

"[..] The old version is a complete mess, especially in comparison. [..]Why not work on fixing the well-written and organized, if still flawed, revised version instead of trying to put back a poorly-written and organized version?"

My reply, I admit that the old version is more messy and confusing for two reasons, one of which can and should not be fixed.

1. Contradicting confusing sources. We cannot and should not fix this because we only report what the sources have stated. The old version does not minimize or hide that. The re-write omits and distorts sources if they contradict Momento's opinions, so the re-write is not so confusing.

2. The re-write has a separate section on teaching. I think that this may be a good idea that could be copied to the old version. I am not sure however because the advantage of the old version is that it give a chronological overview of the changes in teaching. I try to re-organize the old version here I will make a re-write here Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal_nr2

Andries 08:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I fixed points 1. in the Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal_nr2. fixing of point nr. 1. I fixed point nr. 7 by copying the old version as a basis for the re-write. fix of point nr. 7 by starting with copy of the old version Andries 10:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Flippant answers will not take you anywhere, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

First make a start of fixing the specificn practical concerns that I voiced. Otherwise I think that all my efforts of giving detailed comments a waste of my time. Andries 20:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you do it? Give it a go. You may be surprised... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Why should I do the effort when all I have to do is to revert to the old version to have all the major flaws fixed and my concerns addressed? Andries 21:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I changed my mind. I will try to implement some of my many concerns in the re-write myself. Andries 21:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I will make a re-write here Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal_nr2. Andries 08:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

(PatW) I do not think that an unnecessary burden is being laid upon you by my request. The edit history of the draft is extensive, as is the discussion regarding it. The Krishna costume is a good example of the information I was soliciting. See my comments to Andries above regarding points raised about the work done on the previous version. I pose my question to him about the two versions to you as well. Is the new version really more flawed than the old version, to you? If so, why? I'm not interested in hearing about the process of the rewrite. I'm interested in hearing about the content presented. General statements about the content would be fine. I am just looking to understand why the old version is so preferable to the rewrite. Or is it that it's not preferable, but rather just includes information you feel is lacking from the rewrite? Vassyana 19:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(Momento) Would it really be a problem to attribute Geaves (the author of the cited article in the book)? Could the reference to "Indian dress" be replaced with "Krishna costume" to better reflect the sources? If costume is a problematic word, due to its implications of "putting on" in English, you could use "garb" or "attire". Would it be problematic to reinsert the reference to Rawat's request to "surrender to the guru" per Kranenborg? What do you see, besides the lossless folding of criticisms into the main article, as the main changes from the old version to the revised version? What are the main flaws corrected in the rewrite? What are the main flaws of the revised version? Vassyana 19:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no problems whatsoever with these suggestions, Vassyana, if properly implemented. By that a mean that the prose should be consistent and neutral by including the competing viewpoints and attributing it to these scholars that discussed the subject. It should be relatively easy to add these in. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana, I have never objected to Geaves being cited as author. I objected to Andries saying my citing was wrong when it is in accord with other refs to Encyclopedia's in this article where the author isn't named. PatW's "Krishna" example is untrue in every aspect. I introduced "Indian costume" into the new article in April. Rumiton changed it to "Indian dress" April 7. PatW changed it to "Krishna costume" but without any Wikilink on May 10. Andries took the entire paragraph from the new article and put it in the old and added the Wiki link on May 11. It never had a Wiki link in the new article so I didn't lose it as PatW claims. I originally chose "Indian costume" because it accurately represents the "dress up" aspect but without implying that Rawat painted his skin blue as is necessary when dressing as Krishna. Rawat didn't request to "Surrender to the Guru". It is a poor paraphrase of Kronenborg, who wrote _ "in Maharaj ji's satsangs one can notice a speaking style that resembles very much some Christian evangelization campaigns: a pressing request, an emphasis on the last possibility to choose before it is too late and a terminology in which one is requested to surrender to the Lord, in this case Maharaj ji himself. Rawat's famous misquoted "surrender " quote "is surrender your life to me"; what he actually said in India in 1971 was "Subash Chandra Bose (Indian nationalist) used to say, "Give me your blood and I will give you independence." Likewise, I too have a slogan: give me your love and I will give you peace. Surrender the reins of your life to me and I will give you such peace as will never die. Come to me, and I will give you liberation. Place the reins of your life in my hands, and I will relieve you of your suffering. First, be capable of giving the reins of your life to me, then give them. And if I do not give you peace, I will give them back to you". The role of the Guru is adequately explained in "Teachings" and via the numerous Wiki links provided.

The main flaw in the old version is that at 6600 words it is bloated beyond belief. It is the result of editors expressing their POV without caring about readability. The result is so poorly written it looks like a deliberate attempt to create an unpleasant article. The new article corrects those deficiencies by being 2400 words with a focus on being concise, comprehensive and readable. The old version is full of cherry picked POV quotes, with excessive weight given to quotes from Christian scholars; the new version relies on a more neutral range of scholars summaries. The main flaw of the new article is that it is so tightly written it doesn't make the addition of material easy. And that was point, to be complete, stable, factual and readable.Momento 21:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Momento, I think you are wrong in everything what you write, except that the old version it too long. I do not know whether I should take the time and effort of pointing out where you are wrong in specifics, because you have dismissed and ignored my specific comments that I made in the past. The general mistake in the re-write that you make which you more or less admit yourself is that you omit and distort sources when they make statements that you do not agree with or that you think requires more explanations to the reader. Andries 06:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Momento, Melton, Kranenborg, Hummel, Van der Lans, Derks are in the first place religious scholars and psychologists of religion who tried to write neutrally and factually. They are reasonably well-respected in academic circles, though also heavily criticized, esp. Melton for being too lenient on cults. The are also Christians whose writings may be somewhat biased, but their bias is nothing compared to the writings by the follower Geaves who is extensively cited. They are independent from each other and their POV cannot be lumped together as if they belong to one group. So they cannot be considered having too much weight as a group. Andries 06:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Momento, the problem with the summaries and paraphrases in the re-write of the writings by Melton, Kranenborg, Hummel, Van der Lans, Derks is that they are either missing or inaccurate (with a few exceptions). In the past we have had many reverts and long discussions about the interpretations and paraphrasing of their writings. We finally solved this by quoting them. I understand of course that you want to make the article more concise, but if this seriously affects accuracy such as in your re-write then I prefer accuracy. I welcome accurate paraphrasing of their writings that is acceptable to all parties, but the history of this article showed that this was extremely difficult. Andries 07:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object to your statement that my "Krishna" example is "untrue in every aspect". It's clearly not since you did change Downtons words. Don't try to blame me for your 'weasel' wording and wriggle out of your part in this. Yesterday Vassayana asked me to look at the existing article to see what's missing and I did. How the hell was I supposed to know at a glance that Andries had put in the Krishna link? So what? What a great idea. Your reasoning is so absurd it's insulting. I guess that's your intention. As usual you are just time-wasting. If Vassayana for one moment thinks your 'Indian Dress' reasoning makes the slightest sense then I swear I will never look at this article again. I am terminally sick of your absurd reasoning and persistent dishonesty and really would love never to have to subject myself to your brazen affrontery again. What utter nonsense you're spouting about the implication being that Rawat had to paint himself blue... He wore the Krishna costume and sometimes played the damn flute and the whole nine yards.. who are you to say that as Downton's reporting that he wore his Krishna Costume implies "that Rawat painted his skin blue as is necessary when dressing as Krishna." Just how stupid do you think we are? When are you going to stop insulting our intelligence with this kind of vacuous histrionic reasoning. And to think with logic like yours we should for one minute trust your neutrality. You have a good reason to play down Rawat dressing up as Krishna and that is your well-exercised paranoia that people will realise that it is yet another good example of Rawat encouraging people to see him a Hindu Lord. Your neutrality is completely exposed as being non-existant. Vassayana why should we have to deal with this guy's endlessly useless arguments? Why should he be allowed to sit on this article and keep all sensible people at bay with rubbish like this? Come on...doesn't this kind of nonsense try your patience? Could you show us some empathy here? PatW 22:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Pat, please try and remain civil. If you are upset, take a break. And if you could, also please do not talk in "we" speak, as I do not understand who these "we" are. Speak for yourself, and that is good enough. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take more care when expressing yourself. I was replying to Vassyana's question -"Could the reference to "Indian dress" be replaced with "Krishna costume" to better reflect the sources?" Why would Vassyana ask that question when "Krishna costume" has already replaced "Indian dress" in both articles. It was because Vassyana relied on your previous post which suggests I have recently removed it. You wrote - "I now notice that in the original, the word 'Krishna' links to a Wiki article on Krishna. Not only did Momento replace Downton's important words 'Krishna costume' to the less meaningful 'indian dress' but he lost that very helpful link too. Can Momento show us where there is some discussion relating to the replacement of the word "Krishna Costume' and it's link?" You are saying that I have recently replaced the 'Krishna costume' and the link that appear in the original article with "Indian dress" and no link in the new article, and did so without discussion. I did not. "Krishna costume" remains untouched in both articles and the reason there is no link is because your never made one.Momento 23:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You sure like to capitalise on some small confusion or mistake by someone else, to make a totally unfathomable mess and draw attention away from your own errors. And stop putting words into my mouth. I never said you recently replaced anything. I said I now noticed the link and assumed that you'd lost that link when making your new article. Yes I know I was wrong about that, but it's no big deal and a pretty understandable mistake. I was most certainly correct to point out the current differences in the articles. I now learn from you that the attempt to change the embarrassing words 'Krishna Costume' was tackled twice , once by you and then Ruminton. Fine. I also said you'd not discussed these matters which you apparently refute. So where did you discuss your decision to use the words 'Indian Dress' then? You know what? Arguing with you reminds me of arguing with my kids when thery're guilty about something and I've caught them. They just try to change black into white by rapid fire revisionist word-twisting. "You said this and I said that and then she said this and I said that and then you said that and I said...etc" Has it occurred to you that you may just have been caught changing Downtons meaning for no good reason whatsoever?PatW 01:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Vassayana you ask Momento:
Could the reference to "Indian dress" be replaced with "Krishna costume" to better reflect the sources? If costume is a problematic word, due to its implications of "putting on" in English, you could use "garb" or "attire".
I have already replaced the word 'Indian Dress' in the proposed article with 'Krishna costume' and so far Momento's not reverted it for once. But I suggest you don't hold your breath. Why are you asking Momento this? It is patently obvious that Downtons choice of words was not casual or innappropriate. Everyone at the time and since (including Rawat I'm sure) referred to that garb as his 'Krishna Costume' - he even had a special box made for the jewel-encrusted crown and flute. Of course the word 'costume' is not problematic to anyone in their right mind. Why are you pandering to Momento and Ruminton like this? The only reason they're so nervous about using the original words are because they want to make it sound more innocuous as I explained above. That's the only reason unless you buy that rubbish about it implying that Rawat also had to paint his face blue - which I sincerely hope you don't. Do you? Can't you see Momento is mocking us and you by saying that? Also the fact is that Rawat did "put on" the costume unless somebody dressed him. Why should we give Momento any choice in this matter? You keep reminding us to stick to the secondary sources closely - OK then - matter settled- use the secondary sources words to preserve their meaning- not Momento or Ruminton's watered-down ones.PatW 01:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

And look how much time and space it takes just to pin the wriggly Momento down to accepting he's been wrong to insert just two measley little weasel words! Perhaps this will help you (Vassayana) understand what we're up against fulfilling your Herculean task of going through the article with a fine-tooth comb.PatW 01:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you insist in speaking for others, without saying who are these "we"? It divisive and not helpful, Pat. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious that 'we' in this instance refers to us whom Vassayana was addressing when he asked those questions?PatW 02:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your questions Vassayana:
Is the new version really more flawed than the old version, to you? If so, why?....Or is it that (the old version) is not preferable, but rather just includes information you feel is lacking from the rewrite?
In my opinion the main problem with the new version may be generalised using the example of the 'Krishna Costume' turning into 'Indian Dress'. This is an example of paraphrasing to reflect a particular premie POV. (not a POV, I hasten to add that is shared by all premies) To anyone familiar with Prem Rawat, whether it be through reading a lot about him, seeing his videos or having been a premie, it will be clear that both articles suffer from some polarised POV assertion. The older article is a mishmash and the newer one, very pro Rawat.
We have got hung up for ages on certain key issues like whether the extent to which Rawat encouraged premies to see him as The Lord should be made clearer. Also there is a paucity of reliable scholarly secondary material more recently (post 1977) because 1) Rawat and his organisation deliberately withdrew from overt public activity to avoid negative publicity 2) People lost interest anyway. This means that premies have used Cagan's book as a secondary source despite arguments that it is a vanity press. (a view that I personally take). Also critics would like to resort to primary sources which make the picture very much more clear. So we've had that whole lengthy discussion about using DLM publications that I showed were 'readily accessible' in public libraries. The counter-argument having been that they were only available from unreliable sources like ex-premie websites etc. It suits premies far better to not use primary sources and omit a lot of info about Rawat (that no secondary sources apparently exist to support.) Momento was correct to observe that the former article was bloated and that 'The main flaw of the new article is that it is so tightly written it doesn't make the addition of material easy.
But I think he's incorrect to say: 'The result (old version) is so poorly written it looks like a deliberate attempt to create an unpleasant article.' and '... is full of cherry picked POV quotes, with excessive weight given to quotes from Christian scholars'
In fact I would counter by saying that the new article is a deliberate attempt to create a pro-Rawat article, which is equally as full of cherry-picked quotes albeit shorter. Momento admits that he has had to leave a bunch of stuff out and paraphrase concertedly to get the word count down. It seems to me that we are now slowly discovering just how biased some of the new editing has been. The word-twisting is just more carefully done to fox people without arousing suspicion and to convince you it sounds more neutral. As we have seen with the 'Krishna Costume' weasel words which completely escaped your attention. How much time have you got? We can go on for weeks showing how, what appears to you as so 'more neutral' about the new article, is actually not.PatW 02:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Most western people's experience of a "Krishna costume" are the yellow robed, head shaved Krishnas dancing in the street and they could be forgiven for thinking that's what you mean Rawat dressed as. Or that he painted himself blue, which is Krishna's most significant physical characteristic. The exact description of what Rawat wore is a minor point. The major point is what happened as a result. And that is "a resurgence of Indian influence, Rawat's greater place in the practice of Knowledge, people returning to Ashram life and a shift from secular tendencies towards ritual and messianic beliefs and practices". Downton was happy to use "Krishna costume" because he had 200 pages of book to paint a bigger picture of 71-76. We don't. By rights, if we use "Krishna costume" we should also include the fact that "Krishna costumes" had been worn previously in 75 to illustrate that it wasn't something new. And then perhaps an explanation that his father had worn one and Rawat had as a child, that it is a common Guru thing and its significance in Indian culture. But rather than supply several paragraph's of context, I chose "Indian costume" because if he had appeared in any "Indian costume", the effect is still the same - "a resurgence of Indian influence, Rawat's greater place in the practice of Knowledge, people returning to Ashram life and a shift from secular tendencies towards ritual and messianic beliefs and practices". Describing it as a "Krishna costume" may be clear to people familar with early Rawat but it is ambiguous to a lay person and potentially misleading. "Indian costume" is not and if readers want more info they have Downton's ref.Momento 03:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Momento, you should stay close to the sources, no matter what. I understand why the re-write is in this respect and in many place so much worse than the old version when I read your flawed way of reasoning here above. Going from accurate wording and citations in the old version to many distortions in the re-write is unacceptable for me. Andries 05:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You can make arguments like this to change almost anything Momento...in fact you can do it until you are the one who is blue in the face! This is all elaborate dissembling to disguise the main reason you are nervous about using the original wording. That is because you don't want the implication to remain that the wearing of the Krishna Costume in itself partly explains the subsequent resulting Messianic practice - that was absolutely clearly the meaning in Downton's work and you are simply trying to dilute that or wriggle out of it by now, claiming we'd have to insert a lot more lengthy explanation. That is becoming your customary last resort and I have seen through it as a dishonest tactic. Your choice of 'Indian costume' is plainly the ambiguous wording NOT 'Krishna costume' which is precisely what he wore. How stupid do you think 'lay people' are? OK so that's why there should be a link to Krishna. Don't you think that if people didn't know what a 'cowboy costume' was they might gain a pretty good idea by looking up cowboy? Vasssayna, can you see how Momento is using the process of condensation to justify leaving out information that was inherent in the original source? In other words he is trying to insert his POV which is compromising the neutrality of the article.PatW 13:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear PatW, after a year or more in business suits, after the Indian mahatmas in the West either returned to India or were fired, after Rawat and non-Indian DLM became more Western and secular and he encouraged students to leave the ashram and discard Indian terminology and customs; if Rawat had come out in plain cotton dhoti and kurta and a single garland around his neck, the effect would have been the same. I think you're hankering for the olden days.Momento 22:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Momento, no it would not. Why? Because there is not the same symbolism attached to that garb as a Krishna costume which was deliberately associated with that well-known Hindu avatar. A garlanded Rawat in ordinary Indian dress by no means suggests the same association, would not have inspired the adulatory response that Downton describes, nor (most importantly) was what he actually wore. Rawats' purpose in wearing his Krishna costume was clear. He was confirming he was the Lord, could be worshipped as such and was never just a 'business suit' or garlanded ordinary Indian. Now do you admit you've lost this argument?PatW 10:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of Momento's (possible unconscious movitation), it it clear that Momento had in the re-write the habit of distorting and omitting sources that state things that he does not like and ignores or dismisses my, PatW's, and Sylviecyn's objections to the habit and the flaws it caused. That is why using Momento's re-write is unacceptable for me to use as a basis for improvement. Andries 14:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well apart from the fact that the Atlantic City event was never a part of the old article, perhaps you'd like to stay absolutely true to the source and include all Downton has to say - "Later that year, he met with premies for a program in Atlantic City. I do not believe this was a calculated attempt on his part to extend his authority, for as early as January he had mentioned the need for more programs: "As you know, when premies receive Knowledge, I become more involved with them, and every year it's been more and more. As a matter of fact, we've been thinking about putting in a few more programs. Why limit it to the dates of Guru Puja? We want to have them so that more premies can come and we can get more involved and that love can evolve around us more and more..To the surprise of everyone who had come to the Atlantic City program at the close of 1976, Guru Maharaj Ji appeared in his Krishna costume, a majestic looking robe and crown he had not worn since 1975. The sight of him in his ceremonial best brought premies to their feet singing, as nostalgia for the early days caught them up in feelings of devotion once more"..."During the Atlantic City program, a spontaneous feeling of devotion and surrender to the guru occurred, reviving the millennial atmosphere reminiscent of 1971-72, and including the beliefs surrounding his widely acclaimed divinity. Against a background of increasing secularization and bureaucratization, premies were ready for a charismatic renewal. This is the classic struggle between the bureaucratic and charismatic forces in history, which Max Weber considered the dynamic of social change. As a type of authority, bureaucracy leans toward order and efficiency, while charisma introduces creative disorder through heroic leaders who demand the personal loyalty of their followers in order to expand their potential to change the world. It was this conflict between the tendencies of order and disorder which Weber saw as the source of fundamental change in society".Momento 06:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Momento and all, I started an alternative re-write that tries to avoid both the flaws of the old version and the flaws of your re-write. Until now it has exactly the same contents and citations as the old version (so keeping its accuracy), but it is re-structured in a seperate Teachings section, as per your re-write. Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal_nr2. Andries 09:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please leave comments here Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal_nr2/talk Andries 11:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this approach of yours, Andries, as it does not address the objections raised, and it skirts the questions editor have been asking you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What objections are not addressed in Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal_nr2/talk apart from article length?

I have given extensive replies to questions what I think is wrong in the re-write. Nothing is done with my replies. I see no point doing the effort of giving exhaustive detailed constructive critisicms, taking into account that all the objections to the re-write are already corrected both in Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal_nr2 and the old version of the Prem Rawat article. I invite you to leave comments on Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal_nr2/talk. Andries 12:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, you've been told over and over and over again that your authoritative interjections are unwelcome here on this page. You may be "disturbed by" or "disagree with" anything you want, but it still boils down to your personal opinion. Your interjections here that bait and attempt to bully Andries are transparent, and since you have a stated COI with Prem Rawat that you refuse to disclose more specifically, other than to state you work for an "associated organization," it would be much more helpful if you recuse yourself from discussion on this page. Perhaps it's time to get a neutral opinion about your COI. Sylviecyn 14:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

(Momento) Your interpretation above demonstrates one of the major problems with your rewrite, Momento. It's not for us as editors to reinterpret what scholars have to say about Rawat. That's why the original article, while confusing (it can be fixed) is better. I don't think it's appropriate to define the scholars' biases because Geaves is the only one that has a clear bias, based on the fact he never disclosed to his peers (other religious scholars) that he is a decades-long devotee of Maharaji. I've explained that to you on many occasions.

But, I'm glad you brought up Guru Puja, Momento because Guru Puja means means the worship of guru. "Hindu worship of deities' is how "guru puja" is generally defined in India, but in the west, for western premies specifically, it was known that every July, Rawat held a Guru Puja festival which was expressly put on for worship of himself by his followers. There was no question or confusion about who premies were worshipping, nor why we were going to the Guru Puja festival. Btw, I loved going to that festival. Maharaji wore Krishna costumes at those, too. He usually wore a suit and tie while he gave satsang, but after that he'd leave the stage, change into his Krishna costume and crown, and come back while the premie bands played devotional music, and ultimately sang the DLM version of arti to him as the final song. During 1979 to 1980, I was one of the premies that embroidered some of Maharaji's Krishna pants with gold thread and other gold baubles. This was while I was working full time at DECA, and during the DECA projects, Maharaji was completely in charge of what was worked on, based on his specific requests. Maharaji even designed a box to hold the Krishna costume, crown, and flute to travel on the B707 that was reconfigured at DECA for him. See Maharaji's Krishna Crown Transport Box.

Also, Momento, I think it's important to trust the readers to have common sense. You do much too much re-interpretation of the facts and re-interpretation of source material...to the point where you rewrite the true historical facts of this NRM. Also, people may be curious about what is meant by "Krishna costume" but you do not know what "most people" think when they read those words. You cannot control what people think, nor can you anticipate ahead of time what readers will think. Additionally, the words "Krishna costume" was the term used by Maharaji and the premieswhen describing that outfit, not "Krishna garb, attire." Besides, everybody Googles everything these days. If readers are curious, they will do a Google image search with the terms Prem Rawat + Krishna costume, they will see immediately that Maharaji didn't paint his skin blue. See Maharaji in Krishna costume. Sylviecyn 12:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sylvie, I hope I'm not getting too far out of line here. You are a skillfull writer, but I have noticed that your writing glows when you are recalling good times with Maharaji. Rumiton 12:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Ruminton and Momento, I'm puzzled why you both, apparently quite separately, have suddenly decided that Sylviecyn and I might be 'hankering' for the good old days of hat-knitting and guru worship. Could this simultaneous urge of yours be some kind of morphic resonance? Rather like that which compelled British 'blue tits' to peck the tops off milk bottles at precisely the same moment as their distant cousins thousands of miles away on the other side of the planet. It's quite a mystery. Hey Vassayana have you noticed us 'glowing' like this? I'm worried. PatW 10:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe Momento's comment was a bit snarky and sarcastic. However, Rumiton's comment to Sylvie seemed to be an honest compliment. Rumiton was polite enough to preface it with a statement indicating it could potentially be offensive to the Sylvie, despite the positive nature of the comment. I'd have to agree that Sylvie's writing is very strong when she writes about her personal experiences with Rawat. However, it's obviously a set of experiences that have left a strong impression on her, so it is not unusual that the writing would seem brighter/stronger than the average comment. (That is much to her credit. She could potentially write a very potent memoir of those times.) Vassyana 20:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think sincerity goes over your head Pat. Rumiton 10:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Vassayana, you say:Rumiton was polite enough to preface it with a statement indicating it could potentially be offensive to the Sylvie, despite the positive nature of the comment.
Forgive me if my sincerity radar is malfunctioning but isn't this a bit of a condradiction in terms? If one was sincerely trying to compliment Sylvie then why would one ask her not to take offence? Personally I took it that Ruminton was expressing wariness over going too far off-topic. Whatever. It is slightly condescending to suggest that Sylvie's critical comments are actually confirming how much she really loved, being a premie as if she kind of still does, or should if she were really in touch with her feelings. How about we stop measuring each others sincerity? We were all sincere and undoubtedly still are. We're just sincere about different things now. I don't doubt Momento, Jossi or Rumintons sincerity in the least and I am confident in mine. Note however that I would never suggest that my sincerity (or anyone elses) was so lofty as to be over anyone's head. It's getting to be a habit that premies resort to these kind of vapid, snarky comments when they've obviously run out of anything sensible to say in the argument. But then again Ruminton, from what you've said to me in the past I gather that you think ex-premies arguments are way beneath you. Why don't you be honest here, and tell everyone here what what you told me privately about what you actually think of ex-premies words? Can you be that sincere? PatW 23:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how to take the comment and that's why I haven't responded until now. I write well on a variety of issues and subjects, but I've been writing extensively about this particular subject for about eight years, partly deconstructing my personal involvement, partly helping people to break free. Prior to that I was steeped in the Rawat religion belief-system for 20 years. Most people write well on subjects in which they are interested, well-educated and informed. I'm not the least bit nostalgic about my life as a devotee of Maharaji and if anyone felt that I was glowing about my time in the cult from my post above, they have misread my words. But, this talk page isn't supposed to be about me, so let's move on please.  ;) Sylviecyn 01:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Sylvie, that was mostly what I meant. I didn't want Jossi landing on me again for straying from the subject. But it was also 100% sincere, however you now view your previous involvement. But sincerity is no guarantee of not causing offense, so I said it with some hesitation. Won't do it again. Learnt my lesson! Back to the discussion. Rumiton 12:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Doc, if you had wanted to sincerely compliment my good writing, you would have omitted the the cult-associated caveat about it. Sylviecyn 13:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, let me tell you that I found your comment 'I think sincerity goes over your head Pat.' much more offensive than Momento's comment. There was no detectable wit or sarcasm there but nevertheless it is not clear what you meant. I feel that you owe me a decent explanation. Whose sincerity has 'goes over my head'. What exactly did you mean?PatW 12:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Snarky

I'm surprised my comment to PatW that "I think you're hankering for the olden days" is considered snarky, sharply critical; cutting; snide. When in this section alone people have said the following about me without one hint of censure - "You are wrong in everything what you write, you omit and distort sources, you use 'weasel' words, your reasoning is so absurd, you are just time-wasting with your absurd reasoning and persistent dishonesty and your brazen affrontery, the utter nonsense you're spouting, stop insulting our intelligence with this kind of vacuous histrionic reasoning, with logic like yours we should for one minute trust your neutrality, your well-exercised paranoia, your neutrality is completely exposed as being non-existant, the wriggly Momento, your flawed way of reasoning, your habit of distorting and omitting sources and too much re-interpretation, you rewrite the true historical facts and are snarky and sarcastic". I don't need to be sharply critical. That job is well and truely taken.Momento 11:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think most of us can live wth your snarkiness/sarcasm as per the comment that we've discussed...no problem...I just took it as a sign you'd lost the argument and were upset. The criticisms you now list were not aimed at you sarcastically. People really meant what they said. The difference is that sarcastic or snide comments are usually so thinly disguised enough to be taken with a pinch of salt. The criticisms about your reasoning, lack of neutrality etc should be taken far more seriously by you (if they are true), or the Wiki Police if they represent Wiki violation of some kind. Your flippancy towards our criticisms has driven us, over a long period of time, to the current pitch of exasperation that you maybe fancy amounts to a personal attack. The reason these comments have not attracted warnings is most likely because it is becoming increasingly apparent that you have actually driven people to this kind of quite well-justified anger.PatW 12:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to pre-empt a lecture from Jossi or anyone about getting too far off topic with these distractive arguments. Let me just draw it to attenton that this latest little flurry can be quite easily sourced to several inexplicable and possibly provocative comments by both Momento and Ruminton. So they are simply responsible for this whole affair. The fact that Sylvie I and Vassyana commented was simply that we plainly saw how some clarification was needed. Ruminton's vagueness certainly begged some clarification as does Momento's continued confusion.PatW 13:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I will not lecture as it is not needed, as editors' actions and words speak for themselves. After a while patterns emerge for all to see. I would just hope that you stop speaking in "we" speak, and speak for yourself. Now, if editors can now change lanes and start working in improving this encyclopedia, that would be a good thing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I apologise for the 'we' thing - I admit it is a bad habit. It's annoying me now.PatW 14:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I would like to suggest to archive this entire page and start afresh. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A wonderful idea! And if an apology is needed from me, I will use the wording of the great John Cleese, as he is someone whose sincerity and forthrightness, I feel, could never be challenged. I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact and was in no way fair comment and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future. (Well, I did say I thought this whole page was silly. Archive it please, someone who knows how.) Rumiton 14:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Archive or not, it doesn't matter one way or another to me, but being stuck on dial-up here in Podunk, VT makes for a long, tedious page load lately. Let's get back to editing the article.  :-) Sylviecyn 15:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving on

Page archived as per discussion.

Now that we have some kind of tabula rassa, I would propose the following approach:

1. Allow Andries and Momento, and any other editor that wants to join them, to complete their work at Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal_nr2;
2. Editors are also welcome to make further improvements at Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal if they prefer to work on that version;
3. In 30 days or so, or when editors are satisfied that they have put their best effort in these two versions and cannot improve these any further, we can engage Wikipedia:Peer review, WP:RFC and GA reviewers to give feedback on which versions is more encyclopedic, NPOV, etc.;
4. In the meantime if we all agree to a self-imposed moratorium in editing the current article, as to afford editors the time and space to focus in improving versions in response to the GA review, that would be excellent;
5. We can also agree to discuss edits and not the editor, and if we need an outlet to discuss editors, to do that in user namespace rather than here.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider the slate to be wiped clean. I only agreed to the archive of the previous talk page, nothing more. I definitely don't agree to a 30 day or any time limit. There's no good reason for a time limit. I also don't agree to any moratoria on the existing article. Any as far as I can see, no one has been disallowing Momento and Andries or anyone else from continuing work on the article drafts, so I don't get your point on that. But, what really needs to be discussed is your own Conflict of Interest, since you have taken such a strong and influential role on the talk pages in such an authoritarian manner for so long, that certainly affects the outcome of the article's content, and how that interfers with producing an good, honest article. Sylviecyn 20:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... I cannot be blamed for not trying. Note that I did not suggested a time limit. See the caveat "or when editors are satisfied that they have put their best effort in these two versions." The moratorium proposed is on the current article, as to not to do double work, proposing than editors focus their efforts in the two versions proposed instead. As for your repeated COI argument, please read WP:COI where you can find the detail on the behaviors expected of editors with COIs. (Note that this policy may applies to you as well. A person that has spent 20 years as a follower and is now a actively engaged as per your own statement, may be too close to the subject and have a COI as well.) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You can be blamed for exerting too much influence and authoritarianism on the talk pages. I don't have a COI. Goes to show you don't understand what COI really is. I'm not employed by Rawat or anyone connected to Rawat or ex-premies. I'm not a member of anything as you are a member of this new religious movement. You've said you are a personal friend of Prem Rawat. The most you can say of me is that I may have a particular point of view, but, I'm only interested in making sure there is enough honesty and balance in the article. Do you own or prepare any websites for Prem Rawat, his organizations, or do you have any editorial control over their content? Do you have anything whatsoever to do with the public relations of Prem Rawat or his related orgs? Please answer. Sylviecyn 22:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC) oops!

I cannot exert any authority in this or any other article in WP. This is a wiki, and in my capacity as as administrator in Wikipedia, I cannot use any of my admin privileges in this or any other article in which I am involved actively. You have as much authority as any other contributor to the project, and your edits and comments in talk are and will be evaluated on its merits by other editors. You also need to read WP:COI to understand how it applies in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

20 years' experience and insight into a subject is something most encyclopedias would pay good money for, Jossi. Talking of which, we know that Wikipedia doesn't pay its editors or administrators, so how come the position you've taken that you describe as "a conflict of interest" allows you to spend so much time (presumably during your working day) editing Wikipedia? Isn't that certain someone therefore paying you for what you do here? Now, if that's the case, there surely must be a Wiki policy on it somewhere? If there is, please enlighten us.

Revera 22:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:COI. It is all there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you're looking for someone to hold your sword while you fall on it. Well, having declared your conflict of interest, you could do the decent thing and leave the article about your employer well alone. You could, couldn't you? Or would that entail you having to relinquish your 'position' with your paymasters?

Revera 00:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia.Momento 00:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Versions, versions, versions

I think Andries new version is already substantially better than the current version although it is longer at 6819 words versus 6592 words for the current version (the proposal is 2500 words).Momento 23:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Please see Template talk:Prem Rawat. Smee 08:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Jossi's Conflict of Interest

Jossi, you still are not answering the specific questions about your role(s) in the organization(s), related to Prem Rawat, which if left unanswered, leaves suspect any of your edits, both on talk pages and on articles. For instance, if you do website design or public relations work, it is important for you to disclose this. But, those are just examples. This isn't something that I'm suddenly bringing up, your situation on October 15, 2006 [Disclosures.] Btw, that disclosure is not easy to find on your user page. You declared this in writing and yet demand that people blindly trust you to make judgments about your own edits, vis a vis, whether or not you are abusing your COI or not by your request of other editors to provide you with the diffs. That's backwards. Refusing to disclose what you do for the related organization is not a show of good faith and this is improper behavior for an administrator and editor of Wikipedia. The onus is upon you to clear the air, not other editors. You have declared that you know Prem Rawat personally and that he's your friend, then you declared you work for a related organization. It doesn't matter if you are paid or work as a volunteer employee, you still work for a related organization. You have declared proudly that Rawat has been your teacher for 20 or so years.

I'm not asking you to name the organization(s), although why that also remains undisclosed is also suspect. Why not? Other people on Wikipedia with conflicts of interest disclose that information. But, you do indeed need to state your specific role(s) within the organization that you yourself stated you have, so that others can fairly judge whether or not you are or are not exerting undue influence or breaking Wiki policies here. See the "Close Relationships" section of the COI policy. You may need to recuse yourself from these articles altogether, but no one can make this determination without proper information about your situation. Part of the COI policy also warns against advocacy and propaganda. That you participated in the many revisions of that COI policy also places you in a poor light, given you have stated your own conflict of interest here, on an article of a living person who also happens to be your friend, teacher, etc. The same goes for the fact that you played a large role in writing the policy of biographies of living persons. These kinds of things don't go on in the real world without a lot of scrutiny, and I don't think you have any good reasons to ignore the questions and requests that have been made of you regarding your COI, since you originally stated it in writing on the Prem Rawat talk page and on your user page. Avoiding the questions isn't acceptable by quoting the COI policy. Please answer. Sylviecyn 17:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I did answer. Copying it here.

I have already told you all I needed to tell you.

If you have concerns that I have breached any of these terms as outlined in WP:COI, please let me know:

Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when:::

1 editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,

2 participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,

3 linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

and you must always:::

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, attribution, and autobiography.

(1) I am not editing this article besides making no-contentious edits, making minor edits, and applying BLP as advised by this guideline and the WP:::BLP policy. I am contributing via the talk page, encouraging interested editors to collaborate civilly and apply the content policies of WP.

(2) I am not participating in deletion discussions

(3) I am not spamming Wikipedia

(4) I am not breaching any content policies.

I would also like to bring to your attention this portion of the guideline:

Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration. (from WP:COI)

I have never used my administrator privileges in this article. If you have any concerns about abuse of admin privileges, you can report it at WP:ANI, where it will be evaluated by fellow administrators

So, if you have any specific incidents that you want to discuss, please provide diffs to support them.

Also note that as an editor of this encyclopedia, I have collaborated with other Wikipedians in the shaping and monitoring of its policies. If you have any concerns about these policies, you can raise them in corresponding the policies' talk pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sylviecyn, Wikipedia editors have a right to privacy. jossi is operating well within the WP:COI guidelines, and there is no reason for him to reveal any more information than he has already revealed. Please move on from this line of questioning, which itself is veering into policy-violation territory. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Also to the point, this is the talk page. If someone has a conflict of interest, and still wants to contribute, the talk page is exactly where that person should be editing. This is a good thing, not a bad thing, and Jossi's position in this regard is correct. Wikipedia allows pseudonymous and anonymous editing, and as long is it does, continued harassment such as this is not acceptable. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg has it quite right that Jossi is acting well within the guidelines at WP:COI. If you feel otherwise, you are free to post a request that the matter be considered/investigated on the conflict of interest noticeboard. However, such vigorous badgering of another editor working clearly within the guidelines verges uncomfortably close to incivility, if not personal attacks. Please be more cautious in your approach. Vassyana 02:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not vigorously badgering or personally attacking anyone. Wow. Where do you get that from, Vassyana? I disagree with all of you on your assessment of COI policy and COI in general. Jossi uses his influence on the talk pages all of the time which definitely influences what's ultimately placed in the article. If that's not abusing COI, I don't know what is. I'm not the first nor last person to ask Jossi to further disclose his role in the related organization so that fellow editors can assess if he is breaking policy, but now you're all giving him free license to ignore the policy. Also, I never asked him to disclose private details about himself or his life. But, I'm willing to let this drop for the time being, since everyone's so hot about my post above, which btw, I wrote with a clear, calm state of mind. Sylviecyn

jossi is doing exactly what WP:COI says he should be doing; using the Talk: page, not editing the article. Rather than violating policy, he is scrupulously adhering to it; see WP:COI#Suggesting_changes_to_articles.2C_or_requesting_a_new_article. Moreover, you do not need to know anything more about jossi to know whether he is "breaking policy", since even if he were Prem Rawat himself, nothing he is doing in any way violates policy. You are the only person violating policy here. I suggest you refrain from further mis-characterizations of both policy and jossi's actions, and instead devote your time to reviewing WP:COI and discussing article content. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Sylvienc. Not "for the time being". From now on, any further comments such as these will be reported to WP/ANI for harassment and disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The point of Andries' proposal

The point of Andries' proposal was to respond to the GA review. As Vassyana noted - "The old version is a complete mess, especially in comparison. The new version is not perfect. However, I find the old version to be filled with bias and poorly written... Why not work on fixing the well-written and organized, if still flawed, revised version instead of trying to put back a poorly-written and organized version?" Andries disagreed and decided to rewrite the old flawed version. The result is we have Andries' version that is even longer and has not addressed many of the GA concerns which were addressed in the first proposal. After a brief spurt of activity, Andries' proposal has slowed to a crawl. I propose we replace the existing article with the first proposal until Andries' proposal addresses some of the pressing issues brought up in the GA review.Momento 21:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

To avoid a further edit war ensuing, it would be best if you ask Andries if he is done with his work on the alternative version. If he says he is, we could ask GA reviewers and Peer Review editors to take a look and give some feedback on the two proposed versions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please be patient. Andries has only just started working on his draft rewrite. The draft you worked on and watched over took a couple months to put together. This new draft proposal has just gotten started. At the same time, there's no reason the shorter draft cannot be revised, tweaked and updated to account for any concerns the other editors have expressed. Thanks! Vassyana 02:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Good idea Jossi. So as not to push Andries if he needs more time, let's replace the old article wiith the first proposal and let other editor's improve it where they can, and Andries can take all the time he needs with his proposal.Momento 02:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm, not so sure, Momento. Last time that happened, all hell broke loose unnecessarily. ≈ jossi ≈

(talk) 03:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The only question that is important is whether a new version is better than a previous one. Of course, I oppose using Momento's draft replacing the old version, because I think it is worse, but I disagree with Jossi's reason. If a new better version causes edit wars then so be it. Andries 07:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Edit wars are never welcome. Edit wars cause page protection. Continuing edit wars bring blocks. Protracted edit wars bring sanctions like topic banning and 1RR probation. Edit wars and disruptive behaviour are always unwelcome, regardless of the justification. Please reconsider your position. Vassyana 19:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

After reconsideration I still think that I am right and you are wrong. Andries 21:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you really saying the edit wars are appropriate, Andries? I think that you need to refresh your memory: Wikipedia:Edit war. No accepting these basic ground rules is not an option. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I meant to say that an edit war with reverts to two reasonably good versions is preferably to retaining a bad version only to avoid an edit war. Andries 21:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars are never acceptable. At the least, they will get the page protected until the dispute settles down and agreements are reached. It will most likely be frozen as The Wrong Version. On the worse side, edit warring leads to blocks, topic bans and other sanctions. There are a number of means to achieve dispute resolution. Edit warring is not one of them. I beg of you to reconsider your stance and review the appropriate policies and guidelines. Vassyana 22:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I reconsidered and I still think that when we have to choose between

1. A version that is considered bad by all involved parties versus

2. A version that is considered better by all involved parties but that is subject to edits wars

Then I prefer option nr. 2 which I believe helps the encyclopedia more than option nr.1

Andries 08:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The point of my proposal was to combine the good aspects of both the old version as well as Momento's rewrite. Momento's proposal is worse than the old version for reasons that I have made abundantly clear. Let us try to get readable prose of the draft that I started below 6,000 words as advised in Wikipedia:article length. The draft was 6,074 readable prose, but is now more, among others because Momento's edits made it longer (from 93k to 104k total bytes). Andries 05:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I want to state that I see merit in Momento's re-write, but I think it is flawed as whole. Andries 06:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki article length guidlines say (readable prose)-

> 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided up

> 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)

> 40 KB May eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)

< 30 KB Length alone does not justify division.

I have already helped create a readable, well organised article wth 45 KB of readable prose. Your new version comes in at 89 KB, about the same length as the articles on Elizabeth II and Jesus Christ and 20 KB bigger than Albert Einstein. It is much too big and this was a major factor in failing the GA. If you think the first proposal leaves stuff out, give yourslef another 5 KB and try for 50 KB. Anything bigger is a waste of time.Momento 08:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop complaining about article lenght while at the same time repeatedly making many edits that lengthen the article. Are you intentionally disruptive or do I miss a good reason for your seemingly contradictory behavior? Andries 09:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think your proposal is full of edited, cherry picked quotes from biased Christian clerics who see Rawat as being a heretic. As long as you have this stuff in your proposal you will need a little balance. You will note that the first proposal is full of facts and has very few quotes. If you eliminate all the "opinion" and sticks to the facts, you'll create a much shorter and more accurate article. If you like, I'll remove 20 KB of fluff in 24 hours.Momento 09:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean religious scholars and psychologists of religion, like Hummel, Melton, Kranenborg, Frans Derks, Wim Haan who published peer reviewed articles about the DLM? Andries 09:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that Momento is unwilling the agree with a concise version as long it contains summaries of the writings by Hummel, Melton, Kranenborg, Frans Derks, Wim Haan. I will not agree with a version that omits their writings. He feels that he has to compensate their writings with lengthy materials. The conclusion is that a concise version of Prem Rawat is impossible when both Andries and Momento edit the article. Andries 10:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

By all means summarise but a dozen quotes from Christian critics is too much. It's like asking Muslim Imams to review Buddhism. How can they not find fault?Momento 11:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Who (specifically) are the Christian clerics to whom you refer? Do you have evidence of their bias? What makes their bias more of a concern to article neutrality compared to supporters and followers who have written reference material used? Vassyana 19:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hummel is a Lutheran pastor and long time leader of the Protestant Centre for Questions on World Views; Melton was ordained as an elder in the United Methodist church in 1968 and remains under bishop's appointment to this day; Kranenborg is Minister and employed at an Orthodox Protestant university; Van der Lans spent spent 15 years in a Catholic monastery until he was employed by the Catholic University, Nijmegen and Frans Derks is also employed by the Catholic University, Nijmegen. A central tenet of the organisations who employ them is that the only way to God is via Jesus Christ and any one who claims otherwise is a heretic. Geaves is the only follower of Rawat quoted and he is not employed by a Rawat organisation or Rawat University with an established and promoted dogma. As for bias, anything these "scholars" write is predicated by the fact that, in their hearts and in their words, they believe Rawat is in "grave error" and leading people astray. The problem for the article is that their opinions are given undue weight. Where Geaves is relegated to talking about the Sant history of Rawat's teachings, our Christian "scholars" are allowed to voice their personal opinions of Rawat. Kranenborg notes - "He argued that a satguru who drives an expensive car and owns a big yacht may not be a problem for premies, but it is a problem for Christians and that they should ask premies why Maharaj ji does not live what Kranenborg considers to be a normal and simple life". Van der lars - "Maharaji is an example of a guru who has become a charlatan leading a double life. On the one hand, he tried to remain loyal to the role in which he was forced and to the expectations of his students, yet on the other hand, his private life was one of idleness and pleasure, which was only known to small circle of insiders. According to van der Lans, one could consider him either a fraud or a victim of his surroundings". And if not giving their negative views of Rawat, they express their bias by careless reporting. Hummel incorrectly tells us - " that Rawat's satsangs are different from Hindu satsangs, by the demand for faith and the portrayal of himself as as the reincarnation of the eternal "Guru Maharaj Ji". Lans and Derks wrote - ""that according to Maharaj Ji, "all evil should be attributed to the mind", and that such concept of mind indicates the obstacle of freeing oneself from former bonds, referring primarily to a "state of consciousness characterized by everything but passive, nonrational confidence and trust". Even an obscure a student of theology at a Pastoral and Theology school in a small town in the Netherlands is given a paragraph. In the new proposal the dozens of sentences given to the Christian critics is more appropriately summarised as -"His early teachings, which were essentially Hindu in origin, were frequently criticized by Christian scholars and anti-cult organisations. Critics described his public talks as "banal" and like "Christian evangelization campaigns. Christian scholars described his teachings as "lacking intellectual content," and saw Rawat himself as immature, with behavior that was “unpredictable” or “nonsensical," and unworthy of a religious leader".Momento 22:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I need some time to respond to your comments that is filled with distortions and inaccuracies. Andries 05:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Melton, Kranenborg, Wim Haan, [6] Hummel, Van der Lans, Frans Derks are in the first place religious scholars, observers, and psychologists of religion who tried to write neutrally and factually. They are not Christian countercultists. I am very well aware of this kind of literature and I did not include it, mainly because I do not like them myself. I am very well aware of the sometimes willing distortions, ignorance and prejudice of Christians against Hinduism, but I do not think that any of the writers listed here above have done so. They are reasonably well-respected in academic circles, though also heavily criticized, esp. Melton for being too lenient on cults. I think it is telling about Momento’s degree of bias that he finds the writings of cult apologists too critical for this article. They are also Christians whose writings may be somewhat biased, but their bias is nothing compared to the writings by the follower Geaves who is extensively cited. They are independent from each other and their POV cannot be lumped together as if they belong to one group. So they cannot be considered having too much weight as a group.

Hummel was not yet a leader of the Protestant Centre for Questions on World Views at the time of the cited publication. (1980) The cited publication was considered so good that he gained the right to lecture at the uni of Heidelberg.

I can find only one Christian criticism of Rawat in the article (by the religious scholar Kranenborg), clearly labeled as such and self admitted by the source, segregated by the source from more neutral descriptions of Rawat and DLM. This is, I think, very little, taken into account that Rawat chose to get followers in countries in which Christianity dominated.

Haan’s article was based on his involvement during two years with the Dutch DLM and was published in the best magazine about religious movements in the Netherlands. Haan’s article was referred to in the Dutch version of Eileen Barker’s “Introduction to new religious movements” Barker is not known for having Christian sympathies, but more for her moderate anti-anti-cult stance. In other words, the writings by the so called Christians are considered a reputable sources by non-Christians and academic circles. Haan wrote that he gave premies the opportunity to comment on the article before it was published. Unlike Geaves, had the honesty to reveal his background in his article to enable the readers to assess his possible bias. Haan's honesty is now abused by Momento and Jossi to denigrate Haan as a source to the maximum, both on the talk page as well as in the article.

I admit that Kranenborg, Derks and Van der Lans were affiliated with Vrije Universiteit and Catholic Universiteit, but to say that they did not try to write neutrally is something I strongly disagree with. It takes quite a lot of knowledge of the Dutch situation to assess this which I believe Momento does not have. For example, the 1981 book by Van Der Lans “Volgelingen van de goeroe/Followers of the guru” was cited as an example how innocent cults are. [7] Another example, the journal in which Haan published his article also occasionally included guest articles by followers of NRMs clearly designated as such but without critical comments by the editors. (Braak André van der, (Dutch language) Verlichting als evolutionair proces: Een studie van Andrew Cohen en zijn leefgemeenschap written as a guest article when he was still a follower in the book series Religieuze bewegingen in Nederland/Religious movements in the Netherlands nr 29 Sekten, published by the Free University Amsterdam, (1994) ISBN 9053833412)

Here is a word count from the draft that I started. Lead section is excluded. The word count shows that Derks, Melton, Kranenborg, Haan, Hummel, Van der Lans do not have disproportionate amount of space. And in the case of Melton and Derks & Van Der Lans, user:Momento himself gave them more space. Hunt has the most word i.e. 404, then follows Geaves with 308 and then Downton with 305.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal_nr2&oldid=131944277

User:Andries/Prem_Rawat/word_count (details of the word count)

• Barrett (short article in book about many religious groups,) words:172
• Collier, (memoirs of a follower, possibly written while being an ex-follower (greatly and repeatedly expanded by user:Momento 262
• Chryssides religious scholar 33
• Derks & Van der Lans and psychologists of religion, from lengthy article based on their research of the Dutch branch of the DLM, somewhat expanded by user:Momento 116
• Downton (from sociological book about the DLM, based on his research of the American branch of the DLM) 305
• Geaves religious scholar and follower) 308
• Haan, (lengthy article in official university magazine about religious movements, based on involvement during two years with the DLM) 62
• Hadden and Elliot 72
• Hummel religious scholar 27
• Hunt from a sociological book about many religious movements 414
• Kranenborg religious scholar from a lengthy article plus encyclopedia 170
• Lans psychologist of religion in a book written on request for KSGV, Catholic organization 76
• Levine article in a book by Galanter report of the APA 87
• Melton (religious scholar, encyclopedist) significantly lengthened by user:Momento 194
• Messer (article from sociological book, follower) 111

Andries 07:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You say "Melton, Kranenborg, Haan, Hummel, Van der Lans, Derks are in the first place religious scholars, observers, and psychologists of religion". They are not. In the first place, before anything else, they are Christians. And not just "Sunday" Christians, they are Elders, priests, pastors, monks and employees of Christian religious organisations.Momento 09:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Totally untrue. I did not use Melton's sermons in the church as sources for the article or something like that. I used their writings in which they tried to be a neutral scholars. The only exception is Kranenborg's criticism that he self admits to be Christian based. Andries 12:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The truth of what I wrote can be verified with only a mouse-click. From Melton (I personally sometimes dislike Melton writings because of what I see his unjustified leniency reg. cults)

"He explains his perceived and apparent reluctance to pursue the apologetic concerns of his colleagues in the Christian countercult movement:

"My encounter with many Evangelical Christians who write about other religions has, to some extent, helped shape my life's work. However, over the years I have been mostly disappointed with the Christian writing in this area. Instead of attempting to understand the teachings of a group, too frequently writers only compared quotes from the group's literature with biblical passages, both often out of context. Then, as I began to visit the groups, I often encountered the anger at the church many members had because of Christian writers who had written supposedly authoritative books but who had distorted members' positions and had condemned them for believing things they had never taught ... I have always thought the church deserved better, and many years ago I committed myself to providing it with the information it needed both to live at peace with its new neighbors and to carry on its missional life with a high level of integrity.'" (Melton in his book Finding Enlightenment, p. 162)"

Andries 12:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, you have misunderstood what I meant by "Sunday" Christians. "Sunday" Christians are people who's only connection with Christianity is going to church on Sunday. Unlike these "scholars" who are ordained and/or employed by Christian organisation. Secondly, you write that you dislike Melton's writings "because of what you see as his unjustified leniency towards religious cults"! "Unjustified leniency"? Why should religious cults be punished? And thirdly, Melton is absolutely right ..."Christian writers who had written supposedly authoritative books but who had distorted members' positions and had condemned them for believing things they had never taught ". I couldn't have said it better myself.Momento 03:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Momento, two days ago you praised the article and now you've doing an about-face. I understand why you might be feeling impatient. You took all the time you needed for your draft, so, it's only fair to allow Andries the time he needs. Once again, not everybody has all day, every day to write on Wikipedia, so please have patience. It may even take Andries three or four months to complete his draft. I don't see the urgency here. The currewnt article has been live for years. I think there are good parts in all three versions of the article that can be incorporated into one very good final version. Thanks. Sylviecyn 11:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) What do you think the strong points of the three are? What do you think their weak points are? Specifics aren't needed. I am just curious as to what you see as valuable and harmful in each version in a general sense. Vassyana 19:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Not quite SylvieCyn. I said Andries' proposal was "substantially better than the current version", but the current version is a complete mess, especially in comparison with the first proposal. And Andries' version is still way too long and badly written. As Vassyana said "I find the old version to be filled with bias and poorly written". And suggested we "work on fixing the well-written and organized, if still flawed, revised version instead of trying to put back a poorly-written and organized version?" I agree. It could take Andries years to rewrite the poorly-written and organized version. That's why we should replace the biased and poorly written version with the well-written and organised version.Momento 11:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please give Andries some time. It took weeks for serious progress to be made on the first draft proposal. It took a couple months for it to reach the point that is has. If he is working on another proposal, please give him the time to do so. If another viable proposal results from the effort, it would be of benefit. We could then move forward on choosing between the two proposals, soliciting outside opinion about them or merging the two to provide a better article than either. If the other draft is never finished, or otherwise unusable, it can still be used as a point of reference to improve the other draft. Unless there are biography policy problems, which can be (and must be) resolved immediately, it is not going to hurt anything to take a bit more time to try to work out an article acceptable to most participants. Vassyana 19:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana, Andries can take all the time he likes but not at the expense of having the current "messy", "poorly written", "poorly organised", "bloated" and "over long" article remain as Wikipedia's attempt at a Prem Rawat article. We should immediately replace it with the first proposal which can be improved by interested editors and Andries can put up his proposal for consideration by others when he's ready. Having seen what a good article can look like, I am ready to "merciless edit" the current article.Momento 20:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

how can I make a concise version if Momento keeps adding lenghty material to the draft? Momento's demand for a concise version in combination with his repeated edits that make the draft significantly longer is disruptive. Andries 21:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There is significant opposition to putting the original draft proposal in place. There is also understandably some concern about a disputed draft becoming the de facto article. Please consider that. Vassyana 22:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Andries, you can make a concise version the same way I did, by removing most of the irrelevant material and sticking to undisputed facts. No one is stopping you. Vassyana, I think it's time you asked yourself - why would anyone oppose replacing a "messy, bloated. badly written and organised article" with one that isn't? The only explanation I can come up with is that some pople prefer that the Prem Rawat article be "messy, bloated, badly written and organised". I think its time for RFC.Momento 22:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have explicitly and repeatedly explained that I disagree with your draft because of omissions and distortion of sources and have also detailed which sources. I also wrote that you are probably right that your draft is better organized than the old version. That is why I started another draft that tries to combine the best of your draft and the old version. However, I am severely hindered in that by your repeated edits that make the draft that I started very lengthy and bloated, though you also demand that the article remains concise. At best your behavior borders on disruption. Andries 07:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

In one way, and having done quite a lot of work myself on the first proposal, I agree with you. But the wording still needs to be better. It has to keep a lot of very different people at least somewhat contented. Just putting in strongly counter-balancing arguments for each point made doesn't do it, the whole thing becomes unreadable. I think we have spoken about this problem before, and I think Andries will come up against it shortly. It is going to take some very clever word choosing, and I have found with word choosing that a bit of time and subconscious contemplation sometimes leads to the Ahaa! moment. Rumiton 12:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please lower your tone. It's only been a couple of days, Momento, again, please have some patience. I don't agree with your proposal to replace the current article with your draft. Your draft still doesn't follow the sources correctly and accurately, (see Andries's comments in archives), which is something Vassyana can't know because he's not well-informed about Prem Rawat and the NRM. I question Vassyana's ability to assess this article anymore, so I'm not going to take everything he says as written in stone, either. We need a more neutral opinion because it appears that Vassyana is biased pro-Rawat camp, or he simply doesn't have the ability to understand the nuances (there are many) of the facts about Rawat's life, etc. Your article is not ready to go live. Again, please show some patience while we work the new draft. Thank you and have a great day. Btw, I just saw a beautiful Indigo Bunting at the birdfeeder outside my office this a.m. Never saw one here before. A real thrill for a birdwatcher like me. what a color! I love it!  :-) Sylviecyn 12:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Please avoid such personal comments. Again, if you feel my opinion cannot be trusted, please feel free to address those concerns politely on my talk page, or seek outside input from informal mediation or a request for comment. On the bird, that's quite awesome! I tend to watch the squirrels under the bird feeder. :P Vassyana 19:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Vassyana is pro-Rawat, just not anti-Rawat. Perhaps you can help with the first proposal by pointing out the errors you see. I must be too close to it because I still think it is far better than the current version.Momento 12:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sylvienc, you are exhausting my patience and the patience of others with your continuous demonstration of bad faith and your comments on other editors. How dare you to say things like yo say above? Vassyana pro-Rawat? He does not see the nuances? Are you the only one that understands the subject, or are you the only one incapable to see how bad you look here by your comments? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Boys and girls, please! Deep breaths all round. Rumiton 14:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Not easy, Rumiton. Not easy when she is unable to listen to comments made by disinterested parties, and keep making sneering comments right and left, rather than put any effort in fixing anything. This is becoming a farce, in which she uses this pages not to help, but to disrupt. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Jossi, please be careful with your tone and implications. Such comments could be construed as personal attacks. I understand things can get frustrating and heated. However, we should keep cool and limit our comments to the content not the contributors. As you know, if someone's behaviour is a concern, a polite warning is OK and there are places where such concerns can be reported to outside parties. Vassyana 19:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Strike-through. In the future, rather than respond to personal attacks, I will report these in one of the noticeboards. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe go outside and look at birds...I dunno where you are, Jossi, but me, I've been watching a Lazuli Bunting, and it sure is more fun to watch birds than get tense about Wikipedia articles. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You will not believe this, but I actually spotted a couple of them on my morning walk of yesterday... Gorgeous. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Created new article on book, Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji?. Was pleased I was able to find lots of reputable citations for this article. Further discussion can go on the article's talk page, but thought you would like to know. Smee 10:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks. I left some comments in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Weird fork

• Now try us - It has a different structure to the article, that is quite interesting. Smee 00:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC).

Oh... that is just one old version of the article picked up by one of the many Wikipedia:Forks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Van der Lans

Van der Lans comment that "Maharaji is an example of a guru who has become a charlatan leading a double life" and "one could consider him either a fraud or a victim of his surroundings" is an "exceptional claim" as defined by Wikipedia. That is, it is a claim that is "not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community". No other scholar has claimed that Rawat is a charlatan or a fraud, or supported van der Lans' claim and, on the contrary, all scholars accept that Rawat is a guru/teacher from a bona fide teaching lineage. Wiki requires that exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding biographies of living people. There isn't one single, reliable source that supports van der Lans. Therefore van der Lans claim does not belong in this or any other article about Rawat. I have removed it.Momento 10:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Kranenborg mentions the same information. Andries 10:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What does Kranenborg say?Momento 10:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

he extensively cites what Van der Lans wrote. Andries 10:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your view that Van der Lans makes an exceptional claim. Andries 10:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What in particular do you disagree about? If only Van der Lans makes this claim, it is an "exceptional claim". If all Kranenborg does is quote van der Lans, then that isn't supporting VDL nor does it count as a separate source.Momento 11:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Apart from extensively quoting Van Der Lans, Kranenborg wrote on page 66 that Jos Lammers made similar statements as Van Der Lans. Andries 11:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

We need an English translation as well as the original van der Lans and Kronenborg. And in keeping with BLP, I would like you to remove it until you supply verifiable material.Momento 11:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I had already supplied translations several times. Check talk:Prem Rawat and the history of Prem Rawat and Criticism of Prem Rawat, its history and talk pages. Andries 11:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat#Kranenborg_.281982.29_Dutch_original. Andries 11:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This material from Kranenborg doesn't say anything about Rawt being a "charlatan" or "leading a double life" or "one could consider him either a fraud or a victim of his surroundings". What else does Kranenborg say?Momento 11:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Untrue, I omitted Kranenborg's quoting of Van der Lans. I will provide a translation of the rest. Andries 11:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

How can what I said be untrue if you admit omitting it.Momento 11:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I had explicitly written down that I omitted it. Andries 11:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

See here for Dutch originals User:Andries/Prem_Rawat/Non-English. Andries 12:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There can be no doubt you have seriously misrepresented Kranenborg's position. He does not support Van der Lans at all. You have also seriously misrepresented Van der Lans by excluding (in your translation) that the basis of his claim that Rawat "is a charlatan with a double life" is his claim that Rawat was forced to be a guru "apparently by his mother". That comment alone shows van der Lans whole theory is unique and unsupported and contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. All other scholars note that in the beginning Rawat claimed the guruship against his mother's wishes, that he went to the west to spread his message against his mother's wishes and finally took legal action against his mother to take control of DLM. By leaving out van der Lans absurd claim that Rawat was "forced" to be a guru by his mother, you have distorted vdL's theory in an attempt to give it a legitimacy it doesn't have. Further more you also omitted the critical information that vdL bases his claim that Rawat's "private life is one of idleness and pleasure" because when Rawat "visits a festival then a floor of a hotel is rented for him and his family, he only visits the "premies" occasionally and spends the rest of his time watching TV or rented videos and visiting night clubs". What a joke. I have removed it.Momento 19:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A reputable source does not suddenly becomes disreputable only because they make statement that you do not agree with. Andries 19:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that your repeated attempts to remove statements that you do not like but that are properly sourced to reputable sources disruptive. Please follow the rules. I do. Andries 19:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"forced" is probably not a good translation of the Dutch original. I will check. Andries 19:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If you think that I have misreprented Kranenborg or Van der Lans's works then correct this by citing missing statements, but do not remove statements that are properly sourced to reputable sources. Andries 19:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you edit warring about this? I understood that editors were focusing on working on the alternative versions with a view to ask others to help with assessing which version is better as the basis for further improvements. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The same disputes will re-surface no matter what alternative draft versions we are woking on. Andries 21:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring. I have discovered that Andries has deleted critical parts of van der Lans' theory. What is now clear is his unsupported theory that Rawat's mother forced him to become a guru is an "exceptional claim" that is not supported by any other scholar and is contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. His claim therefore needs multiple, supporting, reliable sources. It does not and therefore shouldn't be used.Momento 20:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Then omit the part that is uncorrobortated i.e. that Rawat was "forced" by his mother.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andries (talk • contribs)

None of it is corroborated. If you take out van der Lans' false claim that Rawat was "forced by his mother" to be a guru, then Rawat is not trying "to remain loyal to the role in which he was forced" and therefore he is not "an example of a guru who is leading a double life" and therefore he has not "become a charlatan". And since there is no "double life", there is no "on the one hand". It is all a fabrication. It is van der Lans, who could be considered either a fraud or a victim of his surroundings. Momento 20:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You can write that in the article Jan van der Lans if you find a reputable source. Andries 20:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't miss the point Andries. If van der Lans claim about Rawat's mother forcing him to become a Guru is uncorroborated, then the whole argument that follows - that he led a double life because of it and became a charlatan etc - is uncorroborated. It is "an exceptional claim" that is provably false and you should remove it.Momento 21:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

LIt is voiced in several reputable sources. That is enough for inclusion. Your disagreement of what the reputable sources state is not enough for exclusion. Andries 21:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a dispute about reputable sources, this is about a source making an "exceptional claim" that is not supported by any other scholar and is contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. His claim therefore needs multiple, supporting, reliable sources. It does not and therefore shouldn't be used. There is no corroboration for van der Lans "exceptional claim" that Rawat's mother forced him to become a Guru. Kranenborg doesn't voice it, he writes - "This is what van der Lans writes". Momento 21:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Kraneborg cites what Van der Lans wrote and in additiond wrote that ex-premie Lammers made a similar statement as Van der Lans. You cannot make two reputable sources into zero reputable sources with all the reasoning of the world. Andries 21:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You label claims that you do not agree with as extraordinary simply to raise the bar for inclusion higher and higher. Andries 21:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It is an "exceptional claim" according to Wik = That is, it is a claim that is "not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community". Kranenborg only quotes van der Lans, he doesn't supply additional material or say he agrees with vdL. Lammers does not call Rawat a charlatan, does not claim his mother forced him to become a guru, does not claim he leads a double life, does not claim he leads a life of idleness and pleasure. It's over Andries. Van der Lans claim is a claim that is, and I'm quoting Wiki exactly here, "not supported by any other scholar and is contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community". But you are right, Wiki demands a higher level of corroboration for a claim that is "not supported by any other scholar and is contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community".Momento 22:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Kranenborg does say that Van der Lans' view is supported by Lammers. So we have two reputable sources. How many sources do you have that contradict Van der Lans. Where are they? Andries 22:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

For a start Lammers is not a "reputable source" but that's beside the point because Kronenborg doesn't say " Van der Lans' view is supported by Lammers".Momento 23:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

He may not say it literally, but it comes very close. Andries 23:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And even if some aspects of Van Der Lans writings are contradicted then this is not sufficient reasons to dismiss all his writings about Rawat as a insignificant minority view. I admit that if you find many sources that contradict Van Der Lans' statement that Rawat was forced by his mother or his followers to remain a guru then this statement should probably not be in the article. However you cannot dismiss all the writings of a scholar about a subejct only because he has made one statement that is a insignificant minority view. Andries 23:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Incredible! At 22:51 you claim that "Kranenborg does say that Van der Lans' view is supported by Lammers". At 23:06 you say "He may not say it literally, but it comes very close". He doesn't even come close Andries and even coming very close isn't good enough. Here's Hunt contradicting vdL - "When his father died in 1966, the Guru Maharaji announced himself as the new master and started his own teaching". And Melton & Partridge - "It is stated that his father had chosen him as the person best suited to carry the teachings forward in an international arena as well as in India. Maharaji's childhood is full of accounts of how he would encourage his father's followers to practice the teachings and speak publicly at his father's events". And Downton "In another sense, the elevation of the youngest to spiritual prominence was no surprise at all, for stories are told about his extraordinary dedication to the Knowledge,* which he demonstrated almost from the moment when his father, and guru, had revealed the life force to him. From the age of six, he is said to have voluntarily immersed himself in spiritual practices, sometimes meditating for hours at a time. His exuberance for the Knowledge made him a sensation at satsang,* where premies say he spoke spontaneously to mass audiences with the assurance of someone many years older". Remove vdL's statement from the article.Momento 23:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the alleged contradiction is unconvincing. Van der Lans writes that Rawat became a charlatan. He may have wanted it in the beginning, but later remained loyal to his role from which he could no longer escape. Andries 23:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Van der Lans is not unique in describing Rawat as a charlatan.

"Parents Versus Cult: Frustration, Kidnaping, Tears;

Who Became Kidnapers to Rescue Daughter From Her Guru

By Chip Brown, Washington Post Staff Writer

Monday, February 15, 1982 ;

At 19 Emily was a legal adult, old enough to vote, drink and generally do what she pleased. But for two days her parents held her captive while three strangers vied for her mind.

Emily wanted something else. What she found changed her life and skewed the lives of her parents as well. She was a willful, restless, girl of 15 when she devoted herself to Guru Maharaj Ji, the spiritual leader of the Divine Light Mission. Her parents watched unwittingly at first as their once freethinking child became increasingly involved with an adolescent guru who seemed to them to be nothing more than a charlatan with a weakness for cliches and a talent for fatuous analogies. [..]."

Andries 23:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I will say that both Momento and Andries have a point. Momento is correct that odd claims, or those that run counter to conventional wisdom, need multiple reliable secondary sources for inclusion. He is also correct that parts of individual points should not be cherry-picked independent of context. Andries is correct that even if a particular view or argument of a scholar is inaccurate or incorrect, that is does not invalidate that author as a reliable source. That said, I would politely ask that you both walk away from this and come back to it after a bit. This back and forth is unproductive and will only serve to raise blood pressure. Vassyana 23:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a good idea. Btw, the mentioning of the parents of that girl is most definitively useless as it pertains to a scholarly assessment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the question what constitute "odd claims, or those that run counter to conventional wisdom" is subjective. It will be clear that I think that the statement that a guru is a charlatan does not run against conventional wisdom. Andries 00:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I know you think that way, Andries. That is obvious. What is being discussed is something different. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I will respond tomorrow as I recommended a break in this discussion. Vassyana 00:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, just so you're clear. I haven't said van der Lans is an "unreliable source", it is irrelevant to this situation. What I do say, is that van der Lans claim that Rawat has "tried to remain loyal to a role into which he was forced by his mother" is an "exceptional claim" that is "not supported (by other sources)" and is "contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community".Momento 02:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if the claim is exceptional then this is irrelevant because the claim is not in the article. Andries 05:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Van der Lans makes five "exceptional claims", defined by Wiki as," claims not supported by any other scholar and is contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community". They are -

Rawat is a charlatan leading a double life.

Rawat was forced to become a guru.

His mother forced him to become a guru.

His private life is one of idleness and pleasure.

He is either a fraud or a victim of his surroundings.

They are all exceptional claims and every one needs to be "be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially in the case of BLP. Momento 07:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the requirements of Wiki "Biographies of Living Persons," which are much more strenuous than those for general articles, mean that writings such as this by Van der Lans which clearly border on defamation should be tossed out without further discussion. The benefit of doubt goes heavily to the subject of the article. For that matter, as "extraordinary claims" they should not be used in any other article either. Rumiton 16:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting WP:BLP well-sourced negative statements can stay in the article. Andries 16:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand how Momento can call these claims extraordinary when there is another reputable source (Kranenborg) that makes them, apart from Lans. Momento has yet to provide multiple reliable source that contradict Lans and Kranenborg. Andries 16:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, a source says "Mr XYZ's sister is a whore". Now find a source that says "Mr. XYZ's sister is not a whore". That is a very poor argument, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Two reputable sources are enough for inclusion. Andries 20:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, if source "A" says "Mr XYZ's sister is a whore", and source B says "source "A says 'Mr XYZ's sister is a whore'", and no other source on the subject says anything about Mr XYZ's sister being a whore, that is enough to conclude that it is a "claim not supported by any other scholar and is contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Kranenborg wrote that Lammers made similar statements as van Der Lans. So we have two reputable sources. How many sources contradict Van der Lans? None, as far as I know. Andries 20:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If we can include only statements that have at least three supporting reputable sources then the article will be very, very short. Andries 20:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Andries with your long history of mistranslating quotes it is necessary that you immediately provide the original Dutch and an English translation of Kronenborg writing about Lammers and the text before and after the Lammers quoute. All I can find of Kranenborg citing Lammers is (according to a babelfish translation) - ' Ex-premie ' Jos Lammers says: Learn know itself and learn appreciate, your contacts with others learn make, fortunately learn be, it is all no simple klus. And there comes look at a lot more for than four meditation techniques and blindly following a leader.Momento 22:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Straw man argument, Andries. We are only discussing statements that may violate WP:BLP, and this persons Lammers is not a reliable source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Untrue for two reasons. The interview with Lamers was published in a reliable source and 2. the interview was cited by Kraneborg who commented that Lammers made similar statements as Van der Lans.

You cannot reason away that there are two reputable sources not matter how much you dislike what the source say. Andries 21:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If your way of reasoning is that we we need at least three reputable sources for statments that you do not like, then please say so. Saying so will at least give some clarity in the discussion. Andries 21:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

More straw-man arguments, Andries. I have said all what I could to make you see this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You cannot convince me that two reputable sources mean zero reputable sources. Andries 21:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

From your history, Andries, I cannot convince you of anything. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Untrue and unconvincing, I have repeatedly admitted that you were right and I was wrong. Here to with regards to the meditation. Andries 21:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In any case, I have already stated my case, and there is nothing more I can say. Let's wait for other editors comments, and if we are stuck, we can always ask at WP:BLP/N or WP:RFC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think all the claims I have read from Lans are contradictable by the clear facts, no scholars' opinions needed. If someone says "Prem Rawat has green hair" we don't need to find a scholar who says "Prem Rawat does not have green hair." Prem Rawat's diligence and sincerity in spreading his message have been obvious to all but the most bigoted for decades. The facts and figures speak for themselves. Rumiton 05:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely." In 1980, Rawat moved to Miami with his wife and four children under 10. In October 1980 Rawat returned to India for the first time since 1975, and on newly acquired land in Delhi, spoke to over 38,000 students. He also returned to South America, and visited Mexico for the first time. He continued to hold large, multi-day events for his students in Cartagena (Colombia), Miami, Rome, London, New Delhi, and Kansas City (Missouri). Other cities where he spoke included Cancun (Mexico), Lima, Sao Paulo, and Leicester (UK). He obtained a private pilot’s license, and began training towards certifications and type ratings for various aircraft. During 1981, Rawat flew the 707 to forty different cities, and spoke on 120 occasions. He crisscrossed North America four times that year, and toured South America, Europe, India, Nepal, Australia, New Zealand, and Malaysia". I've added some of this to illustrate van der Lans' view of Rawat's "idle" life.'Momento 10:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

According to one of his close colleagues, Dr. Jacob Belzen, Van der Lans "had part-time appointments in the psychology department and the theological faculty of the Catholic University of Nijmegen, and although his work was certainly not without theological preferences and bias, he presented himself at both institutions as an empirically oriented psychologist." In other words, he was not empirically oriented at all, and this is a colleague speaking at his funeral! So both the content and the author have been thoroughly discredited. This defamatory and clearly false reference has no place in a BLP and I request that it be removed immediately. Rumiton 11:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If Belzen's words are printed in the University's magazine, it should go in the article. Perhaps - "In 1981, Jan van der Lans, a Roman Catholic cleric and professor of psychology of religion at the Catholic, Radboud University in Nijmegen, who's work was described by a colleague as "not without theological preferences and bias" claimed that Rawat's "life was one of idleness and pleasure". That same year Rawat, now the father of four children under 10, personally flew a Boeing 707 to forty different cities, and spoke on 120 occasions. He crisscrossed North America four times that year, and toured South America, Europe, India, Nepal, Australia, New Zealand, and Malaysia."Momento 11:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be fair to Van der Lans, he DID say Rawat's PRIVATE life was idle and pleasurable. In the time period being discussed that would appear to amount to about two Thursday afternoons and half a morning somewhere. Rumiton 11:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

True indeed. After spending 15 years in a Catholic monastery, Van der Lans would be an expert on idle pleasures to be enjoyed in private.Momento 11:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate Kranenborg's words as interpreted by Babelfish. They are ensuring that human translators stay employed, regardless of the ill feeling generated by our mate Andries' occasional lapses into POV. Rumiton 08:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not an exceptional claim for anyone to make when discussing a six, eight, or even a sixteen year old child, to say their parent had control over them or even forced them to do something. That's especially true in this case, where there's a section in the Momento's draft article called "Taking Control" that claims when Rawat got married at age 16 he desired control over DLM. Either he had full control from the beginning or he didn't. His "taking control" at age 16 severed his relationship from his mother forever until the day she died. I would think that what is the exception claim is for anyone to say that any young child could have possibly made any major or even minor life decisions without their parent's influence, input, and consent. It's a normal observation, not an exceptional one, for a scholar/source to see the very young Rawat as being controlled by his mother, especially since Rawat didn't become a guru until his father's death. What child isn't under the control of their parent? That's a more objective view and looking at Rawat's life from the outside in, not the exceptional claim, or even anyone's POV. I would think that the POV here is thinking an eight eyar old has total control over his life.

Also, can anyone provide the source for Rawat piloting the B707 during 1980 and 1981? Sylviecyn 21:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It is an "exceptional claim" when van der Lans claims Rawat was "forced" to be a guru by his mother when no other scholar corroborates his claim. Here's Hunt contradicting vdL - "When his father died in 1966, the Guru Maharaji announced himself as the new master and started his own teaching". And Melton & Partridge - "It is stated that his father had chosen him as the person best suited to carry the teachings forward in an international arena as well as in India. Maharaji's childhood is full of accounts of how he would encourage his father's followers to practice the teachings and speak publicly at his father's events". And Downton "In another sense, the elevation of the youngest to spiritual prominence was no surprise at all, for stories are told about his extraordinary dedication to the Knowledge, which he demonstrated almost from the moment when his father, and guru, had revealed the life force to him. From the age of six, he is said to have voluntarily immersed himself in spiritual practices, sometimes meditating for hours at a time. His exuberance for the Knowledge made him a sensation at satsang, where premies say he spoke spontaneously to mass audiences with the assurance of someone many years older". And don't forget vdL is writing this in 1981 and still claiming that Rawat was "forced" despite all this contradictory material being available. Cagan is the source of Rawat flying the 707.Momento 22:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Piloting the B707 during 1980 and 1981 source:

• In the spring of 1979, an old Boeing 707 was acquired that had a long enough range to accommodate his extensive travels and enough space for his family and the people helping with his tours. The aircraft underwent extensive renovations in Miami before becoming operational in 1980. pp.222
• In June of 1980, the refurbishing of the Boeing 707 was completed. To be able to fly it as the captain, he acquired various aviation licenses including his private pilot license, a commercial pilot license, and an air transport pilot license. During 1981, his efforts were rewarded as full access to the 707, a capable aircraft, enabled him to travel to forty different cities and speak on 120 separate occasions. He crisscrossed North America four times that year, touring South America, Europe, India, Nepal, Australia, New Zealand, and Malaysia. pp.228

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Cagan's account is exactly as I remember the course of events occurring with the 707 and Rawat working towards and getting his various pilot licenses in 1979, 80, 81. Thanks very much. Sylviecyn 11:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hilarious

Kronenborg reports that ex-premie Lammers complained that when Rawat arrived at the hotel "he locked himself in the hotel room with "security-premies"". Now I know some people may prefer to sleep in the lobby or wait around in the corridors, but I'm afraid I must agree with Rawat on this one. I like to go straight to my room and close the door behind me, which in most cases locks automatically. If it didn't lock automatically I would follow the advice of hotels and travellers the world over and lock it myself. Well done Andries for finding this priceless gem. I suppose another complaint will be that Rawat watched TV and went out later and did some shopping. What a scandal!Momento 04:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I had not finished the translation. Sorry for the confusion it caused. Andries 17:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Momento, I think you have it right. This and Lans' stuff is spiteful cr*p and has no place anywhere on Wiki, let alone a BLP. Presumably Andries will return from his cooling off period soon and see the value of removing it. Rumiton 15:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This highlights the problem with this article and Andries' new one. It is full of absurd quotes that are clearly the work of biased authors who have written about innocent activities, such as entering a hotel room or watching TV, in such a way that even the most innocent activity is tainted.Momento 20:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's another classic. This paragraph from Glock and Bellah says - "Although Maharaj Ji is himself from India, is a guru, and offers a meditation technique, he is not clearly Eastern and is a subject of great controversy in India, where he is also a major heretic. Any man who says that all scriptures are true, that Buddha, Mohammed, Moses, Jesus, Krishna, and a host of others were all Christ, is a heretic everywhere". Andries has reduced this to "Glock and Bellah describes Rawat as being the subject of great controversy in India, "where he is also a major heretic".Momento 21:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Editors need to be careful of the fallacy of quoting out of context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not remember ever having written this. I think Momento mistakenly attributes this sentence as my edit. Andries 17:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Cynthia, when you say: "It's a normal observation, not an exceptional one, for a scholar/source to see the very young Rawat as being controlled by his mother" I have a problem. It isn't an "observation" at all, it is an assumption, and it's true, a pretty normal one. If I knew nothing about the subject I would make it myself. But by all acounts Prem Rawat was highly self-motivated towards Knowledge from a very early age. So that makes this an "exceptional claim" in Wikipedia and it must be deleted. Rumiton 02:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. I wasn't intending to voice a pro or con opinion about whether the sources should stay in. None of the scholars/sources had first-hand observation of Rawat's childhood, so I think it's important to stick to what's consistently known and reported about Rawat about that specific issue. You're right, all accounts I've ever heard depict PR as being very devoted to Shri Maharaji and K as a small child. It is difficult to make an assessment without being able to read the source's language. Hope this explains. Sylviecyn 10:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Thanks Sylvie. Rumiton 15:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Both Contextomy and Lousy Translation.

My Dutch translator tells me Tussen stigma en charisma: nieuwe religieuze bewegingen en geestelijke volksgezondheid would be best translated as "Between Stigma (prob. in the biblical sense, the wound marks identifying Christ = stigmata) and Charisma: new religious movements and the spiritual health of the community". Andries happily translates the last as "mental health" and ignores the overall message and POV, which is that of a profoundly biased Christian churchman. Rumiton 14:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This was written by the sociologist Paul Schnabel whom I believe is not a Christian. Here is the translation of the title of his Phd dissertation "Between stigma and charisma. New religious and mental health"[8]Andries 17:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get the PhD title from? It is at odds with the title you gave us. Tussen stigma en charisma, and so forth.Rumiton 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

On the advice of my translator I feel the need to expand on the above note. Apparently the Dutch language, like the German one, is burdened by long and clumsy expressions. Speakers and writers simplify things by omitting words and phrases where the context still makes the meaning clear. For example in German no one much says "I wish" they just say "Wish" and there is no confusion. In the context of a particular school of thought with shared paradigms this especially happens, and it is a dangerous playground for a biased translator or quote seeker. The name of the above book, as it would be understood by a churchgoing Dutch person would be: The Choice to be Made Between the Pain and Suffering of Christ, the True Saviour whose Sacrifice Redeems Us From Our Sins, and the Mere Superficial Attractiveness of the New Religions: How the New Religious Movements Affect the Spiritual Health of the Dutch Community. This is not research. This is sermonising. Rumiton 08:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think that Paul Schnabel was a Christian? Andries 17:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

He may not be a priest but if this is the title of his article, he leaves no doubt as to where his allegiance lies.Momento 01:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The title of Paul Schnabel's Phd dissertation is Tussen stigma en charisma: nieuwe religieuze bewegingen en geestelijke volksgezondheid in English Between stigma and charisma: new religious movements and mental health. Why do you think Schnabel is a Christian? I think that your comments are misguided, but it takes a lot of time to explain this which I will not try because it is not so important for the article. Feel free to ask other Dutch people. For example, "stigma" in the title refers to the bad reputation of many new religious movements. It has nothing to do with Christianity. Andries 05:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You keep changing your translation. The Dutch person I know translated geestelijke volksgezondheid as [Dutch] Community Spiritual Health. This parallels the German "geistige Volksgesundheit." Whether his use of "stigma" is religious, as my friend suggests, or not (without more context it is impossible to say) it still implies a hostile and prejudiced attitude. Rumiton 14:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If you do not believe anything that I write then I think I can better stop giving replies to you. I strongly disagree with the translation "Spiritual Health". It should be "mental health". Andries 15:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What Now?

Jossi, you are the man with the Wikipedia experience, what happens in a situation like this? We have an editor who has been banned from other Wiki articles for, as far as I can see, disruptive and time-wasting behaviour, doing the same thing here. We now have three versions of this article to try to juggle, almost entirely due to his trouble-making. He has flooded two of these articles with his own obscure and badly translated citations from insignificant and biased Dutch sources. When they are not biased enough for him he fiddles with the translation or quotes them out of context until they appear to be so. When challenged on a particular point he just says "I admit that I was wrong" and goes off and does the same thing again. Are we to spend the rest of our lives refuting this garbage? Is there a mechanism in Wikipedia to stop this? Permanently? Until this can be resolved, I strongly move we restore the new Bio Proposal as the main article and continue refining it to meet Wiki GA standards. Rumiton 03:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You can always try again and put back the new version and see what the response is. My view is that the Bio proposal version is far superior to the current version, and I gather that it is also Vassyana's view. There is no reason why not to have a better version that responds to the GA review as the current article. If at a later time Andries can better his version to a state in which it can be offered to be compared with the current article, then we can have that evaluation done at that time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The bioproposal omits and distorts sources, so it is worse. Andries 16:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me, but it doesn't answer the question. How is a situation dealt with where an editor has repeatedly and disingenuously misrepresented sources? Rumiton 09:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Who, where, when? Andries 16:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Andries has done this article a great disservice. We should replace this mess with the Bio proposal immediately. What do you think SylvieCyn?Momento 10:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

These words about Andries are an exaggeration, imo and probably a personal attack. Eye of the beholder and all that jazz... I could say the same (disruptive, stubborn, etc.) of every editor on this article, myself included!  :-) Since it hasn't even been a month since he created his bio/draft, Andries deserves more time to develop his draft before a decision is reached to have Momento's go live. I base that opinion on the amount of work he has done over a few years on the current version. I followed Andries's situation concerning the SSB article, and I don't see him as the only party that was at fault, in fact, he was the recipient here and off-wiki, of some pretty severe and atrocious personal attacks. So I don't at all view that situation as any basis for condemning him on this article, and he shouldn't be condemned or criticized at all, imo. None of us deserves or likes to be condemned, accused, or criticized and we all know how terrible it feels when we are on the receivng end of it so maybe a little lightening up and cooling down is in order here. Patience, too.

There are edits Andries has made that I agree with and others that I don't. And I really don't like edit warring at all (as seen recently between Momento and Andries), but it takes two editors to do that. Edit warring is useless, imo. I'm also concerned about translations, but don't see any solution unless all non-English source material is excluded, or an uninterested person who can provide translations acceptable to everyone, is willing to help. So, instead of accusing Andries, I'll simple ask Andries now what his intentions are: Andries, do you intend to further develop your draft, and if so, how much time do you need? Please answer soon, as folks are getting impatient. Thanks. Sylviecyn 16:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The Sant Conundrum

One thing I feel is needed in all the versions is a more direct and sympathetic appraisal of the dilemmas that have occurred when a master of the Sant Tradition, in which Prem Rawat is steeped, enters a different culture, be it Holland, Australia or Cote d'Ivoire. I doubt whether any scholar looked at this situation in the 70s, but I would like to try to deal with it now. It won't be a simple thing, but I think it is a crucial issue for many and resolving it satisfactorily might mean the difference between a life of constant edit warring (or the threat thereof) and a stable article. (And I can go fishing at night again.) Rumiton 13:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Downton and Collier are the experts for the 70s.Momento 16:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The editing dynamics do not work

Momento keeps adding lengthy material to balance statements from scholars that he does not like. He has also done that in the draft that I started. This makes the article very lengthy. I see no solution, because this I think, this will re-occur in whatever version is used as basis for improvement. Andries 11:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Momento, unless those details are explicitly reported in their works or verifiable in other sources, it is original research. It is also necessary that if such facts are represented to imply bias that a reliable source frames the information in such a fashion. I am not commenting on any particular edit, but rather this is a general comment. Andries, please be aware I will be taking an axe to some material in the article. Exceptional claims require multiple non-trivial reliable sources. Repetition of the same source does not provide multiple non-trivial references. Additionally, poorly-sourced negative information about living subjects must be removed, according to policy.

Additionally, I would implore both of you to stop editing the main article and focus on your draft proposals. The sooner the drafts are reasonably completed, analyzed and compared, the sooner we can move towards a better and stable article. Vassyana 11:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Where are the "Exceptional claims require multiple non-trivial reliable sources."? I do not see them. Nor do I see"poorly-sourced negative information about living subjects". Andries 12:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I will detail the reasoning behind any removal of information.

Vassyana, I think that your comments about the draft statements omit to mention that whatever draft is adopted, the same bad editing dynamics will re-occur. So whatever concise draft is adapted, it will soon become very lengthy. Andries 12:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I am seriously disappointed in both you and Momento. The main article is a mess of back and forth. I will politely ask, once, that you BOTH stop editing warring over the article. Vassyana 12:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The only two reverts that I made were correction of an author name (Geaves). Andries 12:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I was not only counting the recent activity. The article is a complete mess of pro and con back-and-forth. Vassyana 12:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

BLP violations

I am overall concerned about the direction this article is taking. It is filled with back and forth. I have removed a few pieces of infomation that were in violation of BLP.

1. Prem Rawat called a "charlatan" by antagonistic source. This is, along with the theory it is founded on, an exceptional claim not supported by multiple non-trivial sources.[9]
2. Negative presentation of hotel arrangements by antagonistic source. An exceptional claim not supported by multiple non-trivial sources.[10]
3. Heavily negative presentation by antagonistic source, which the article clearly stated is (at least in part) outdated and inaccurate.[11]

I have additionally removed a statement, with reference, that could easily be considered a link to an attack site.[12]

I have only removed what I feel is a clear violation of policies on biographical articles and attacks. If I were actively editing, I would gut the article removing loads of both pro and con cruft. I strongly request that editors go back to working on drafts, instead of returning the article to a battleground. In its current state, it is even worse than when I first reviewed the article. Vassyana 12:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for an example, from each side, of the cruft I refer to:

Van der Lans died in 2002, the year after The Prem Rawat Foundation was founded as a Public Charitable Organization, largely for the production and distribution of audiovisual and other materials promoting Rawat's message. It also funds international humanitarian efforts, and provides water, food and medical relief to war-torn and impoverished areas.

Isn't this bit of pro-cruft a bit out of place where it is?

He further wrote that when Christians get into dialogue with premies that the lifestyle of the guru is of great importance. He argued that a satguru who drives an expensive car and owns a big yacht may not be a problem for premies, but it is a problem for Christians and that they should ask premies why Maharaj ji does not live what Kranenborg considers to be a normal and simple life.

Why do we need pro-Christian POV evangelism advice in this article? Vassyana 12:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

ad 1. "Prem Rawat called a "charlatan" by antagonistic source."

No, this is neither by an antagonistic source. Again, Van der Lans was quite lenient about cults. Nor is it an exceptional claim. If you think otherwise, then please give your definition of an exceptional claim and how this Van der Lans' view fits the definition. Again, this is supported by multiple reliable sources i.e. Kranenborg and Van der Lans. Andries 12:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

ad 2. No, that is not an antagonistic source. That is an article written by a religous scholar (Kranenborg) who was sometimes criticized for leniency against cults. It has been written down in two reliable sources (Jos Lammers in Haagse Post "Het concern van Guru Maharaji" 14 Feb. 1981 page 51 and Kranenborg's book). It is not an exceptional claim.

ad 3. No, the APA is not an antagotistic source. And even if it is outdated then this can (and was) stated as such. Andries 13:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Andries 12:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested in what you consider "lenient against cults". They certainly take positions in opposition to cults. Beyond that, I'll address your points. Van der Lans is quite plainly antagonistic to Prem Rawat, criticizing him harshly on a wide variety of points. It is an exceptional claim because it stands out, and is even contradictory to other sources. The repetition of a single source does not create multiple non-trivial sources. Kranenborg is obviously opposed to the subject. His bias is also apparent since he explicitly includes advice on how to evangelize to premies. What does the Post report on this subject? Is the material a repetition of the other source? What exactly does it say? Your third point is a red herring. The book was published by the APA. The book was not peer-reviewed, but rather composed of essays solicited from professionals with a wide variety of views. Please compare the vast gulf between the adjacent essays found in chapters fourteen and fifteen, as an example. Regardless, Levine himself is a widely known secular anti-cultist. His claim that people mainly join cults due to immaturity and adolescent dissatisfaction are widely repeated, for example. Vassyana 13:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No, neither van Der Lans and Kranenborg did not generally oppose Hinduism or cults/new religious movements and can hence not be considered an "antagonistic source". And even if they are antagonistic to Rawat, so what if they were so with reason, and if the source is reputable. A source does not suddenly lose its reputability only if it makes trenchant criticism. I tend to agree with your assessment of the book by Galanter, but nevertheless, it is a reputable source ,but no Levine was not a secular anti-cultist and you admit implicitly yourself that his views are mainstream when you write that his claims are widely repeated. Andries 14:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Kranenborg's Christian criticism was segregated in another section of his lengthy article that is labelled as based on his Christian views. He was never a Christian apologetic and he did not encourage proselytization among premies. Andries 14:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Van der Lans has extensively written against NRMs, not just DLM/Elan Vital. His work was sponsored by an openly Christian organization that supports authors and scholars who frame NRMs as a mental health risk. Lavine is a secular anti-cult scholar and a well-established figure in that field. Widely repeated does not mean mainstream. His views on cults do not have wide acceptance in psychiatry. (To contrast, his views on developing adolescent psychology are widely respected.) The prevalent view in psychiatry treats NRMs far more sympathetically than as a symptom of adolescent immaturity and dissatisfaction. On Kranenborg, giving advice on how to proselytize to premies hardly not encouraging it. Vassyana 14:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong in nearly eveything that you write. Van der Lans wrote about NRMs, not against them and he was not very critical, but for some reasons made an exception for Prem Rawat. The cited book is cited as an example how relatively harmless cults are. Again, you are wrong about Levine, who was not anti-cult. Andries 14:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"Also, in the early 1980s, psychologists from Nijmegen University had published several case studies on new religious movements (See, for example, van der Lans 1981). They did not point to any dangers that could emanate from being associated with these groups. [..]

Lans, J. van der (1981) Volgelingen van de goeroe. Hedendaagse religieuze bewegingen in Nederland. Baarn: Ambo" [13]Andries 14:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Andries 14:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is some evidence that Reender Kranenborg is not the Christian counter cultist or anti-cultist that Vassyana believes him to be, but a serious scholar who tries to write neutrally about cults.

http://www.cesnur.org/2002/slc/kranenborg.htm

"As I am known in the Netherlands as an "expert on sects", I was consulted on numerous occasions and asked many questions. [..]In my own investigations, I learned that the rumours in the newspapers and on television were either untrue or grossly exaggerated. Apparently, the media were greatly inspired by the ideology of the anti cult movement. "

http://www.kelebekler.com/cesnur/txt/lou2.htm Kranenborg was chairman of a CESNUR conference that was harshly criticized for its lenient attitude towards cults. Andries 21:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Andries 21:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Has anybody argued that Kranenborg is an "anti-cultist"? Where? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana seems to have the impression that Kranenborg is an antagonistic source, but even if this is true then a source does not suddenly lose its reputability only because it makes trenchant criticism. Andries 06:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana, one reason why we don't have a good article is because you didn't stand up for the "well written and organised" Bio/proposal. I was guided by your comments as an independent reviewer that the Bio/Proposal was superior to the current article but when Andries reverted back to the "bloated, messy" article, you went along with him. And when Andries proposed to leave the "bloated, messy" article in place while he produces his prefered version, you went along with that as well. So now we're supposed to wait for Andries, who hasn't made a single edit to his new proposal for a week. How long are we supposed to wait? One month, six months, a year? Either the Bio/proposal is better than the current article or it isn't. If it is, you should use your independent reviewer status to reinstate it and Andries can get his proposal into shape at his leisure.Momento 13:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if the bio-proposal is used here then the same disputes and editing dynamics will re-surface. I will immediately re-insert the sources that you have omitted and distorted and you will immediately either revert or try to balance them with lenghty material with as an end-result at best a very lengthy article. Andries 13:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I will not try to abuse my status as an informal mediator/outside opinion to force changes on the article. I am just another editor trying to help out. I only removed the material above because it was blatantly against policy. Please stop blaming each other. It borders on personal attacks and certainly is not civil. Besides, they cannot edit war on their own and the jumbled mess of pro and con didn't come from one side of the content dispute. I would like to see the both of you be more cooperative and less combative. Vassyana 14:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I will be more cooperative if Momento stops

1. removing or distorting what reliable sources have stated and stops

2. trying to "balance" statements that he does not like by adding very lenghthy material, much more lengthier than the statements that he does not like.

Andries 14:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

So the "blatantly against policy" stuff has been removed. That is surely a good thing. Will it stay removed, and what happens if it doesn't? And what about the stuff that might be called "subtley against policy?" (BTW did I say Thank You before? If not, Thank You.) Rumiton 14:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I will re-insert some statement that are sourced to multiple reliable sources. Andries 14:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome Rumiton. I would hope someone will brutally take an axe to the article and remove all such "subtle" stuff both pro and con, such as the examples above. (Being a bit more clear, I removed things against policy that should be removed immediately without prejudice.) Vassyana 14:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think if that were done, one would end up with something very much like the Bio Proposal we have been working on (Momento and I.) If we do it here, Andries willl start putting the spiteful stuff back in again, and one of us will feel the need to balance it out and... here be dragons. I just feel we need to cover the culture shock on both sides when a sant tradition master starts talking to people in the west. Still thinking how to approach that one. When that is done, I think we will have a great BLP. Rumiton 14:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of your edits and comments reveal that you do not know the sources and the subject matter. Andries 14:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That is true Andries. I don't have the full context, so I can't be sure how to translate some things. You do have the full text, but I feel your strong bias in the subject makes you an unreliable source. Rumiton 14:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about Vassyana, but it is true that the same applies for you. I did try to translate the sources that I have, though it is a lot of work. I am not the source. The sources that I mention are the sources. There are hundreds of Dutch speaking editors on the English Wikipedia and some have already helped in checking Andries 14:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It is about time that:

1. Replace the current article with the vastly improved bio proposal
2. If an editor wants to work on an alternative version, he has all the time in the world to do that
3. If an editor starts reverting repeatedly, Wikipedia has the tools and practices to stop him, so no big deal. Let him exercise his threats.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Let's do it. Rumiton 14:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

To prevent unnecessary changes, perhaps it might be helpful to note the reasons why this version is "vastly improved." Here are some that I can think of.

1. It is fairly concise, though I think it could be further reduced in places.

2. It complies with the requirements of BLP. Especially with the need to avoid causing hurt or distress to subjects.

3. It is rather balanced, though I think more can be done to improve this. See my post re sant reception in west above.

4. It concentrates on major facts, things that a reader would want to know if they looked up the subject. There is little extraneous "colour."

5. It reads quite smoothly, without the sudden, jarring effects of an insertion by someone who clearly had a major axe to grind on the subject.

6. The sources are fairly international, and largely written in English, more relevant to the English speaking reader.

7. It reads coherently. The opinions of sources have been averaged out and the reader presented with a balanced view.

All the above can still be improved. Or made a lot worse. Let's not do that. Rumiton 15:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It omits and even distorts important reputable sources. That is unacceptable. Andries 15:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Andries, WP:THERAPY ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with omitting and distorting reputable sources? Andries 15:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Any distortions can be easily fixed. Just because we have a source does not mean we have to use it. The imperative is a good, stable and neutral article. Not a mishmash. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

When differing and divergent sources are accurately being reported according to WP:NPOV then a mish mash is hard to prevent. Andries 16:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, see for example Martin Luther, about whom there is immense controversy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for sources

I've put some serious thought into the conflicts here, particularly over sources. There are a large number of available reliable sources regarding Prem Rawat. We don't have to scrounge for references, as there are more than enough, ranging from gushing to dispassionate to hostile. Extreme minority views of topics are supposed to be excluded from those topics' articles. References used should be verifiable to an Anglophone reader. Both of those being true, I have two suggestions.

• Claims in foreign language sources must be verifiable in an English-language reference or a traditionally published English translation.
• All facts included must be supported by two or more reliable sources. A source repeating another is not a valid second source. A second in-line citation is not necessary, but a second source should be provided if someone challenges the claim.

This will only exclude unsupported exceptional claims, extreme minority views and information which is not verifiable to a reader of the English Wikipedia. This would also ensure that the information included is clearly supported by the references. Thoughts? Vassyana 17:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with non-English sources is not verifiability but assessment of their reputability. For example, some statements about Van der Lans and Schnabel on this talk page are utterly misguided. I can state whatever I want about them but this seesm not to help because people do not trust me. Andries 21:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with non-English sources is not reputabilty either, it is context. We don't have it. We don't know the cultural background in which these articles were first written, mostly 30 years ago in a foreign country, and we don't know the full articles or dissertations of which they are excerpts. As a result of trying to deal with your inclusions from Dutch and German clerics, I have had to do a lot of research into modern European religious history, Catholic and Protestant, Dutch Reformed Church etc. and spend rather a lot of money purchasing obscure books. I have no interest in this subject at all, but I needed to find out the background for their apparent hostility towards NRMs. I also needed to check your translations of their titles and texts. I have worked as a professional translator and I know you must have the cultural context of any piece of writing before you know which tone to choose for your translation. It isn't so much that I don't trust you, Andries, but I can see clearly that you have strong personal feelings against Eastern Religions (and probably you have good reasons to feel that way.) But these feelings color your word choices. For example, you persist in using the word "cult," which is highly dated and perjorative. It is like calling black Americans "colored folk" or "negroes." The neutral term New Religious Movement is better, though in Prem Rawat's case it is probably inappropriate. The Sant Mat movement to which he belongs appears to be about as old as Islam. Similarly you speak of being "too lenient" towards cults. Lenient is a term applied almost exclusivly to punishment. Would you use the term in an article about Buddhism? It is disrespectful and not appropriate here. It creates a hostile working environment.

I agree with Vassyana's suggestions. From my personal experience of the last few weeks I would prefer to disallow all foreign language sources, but in an imperfect world I can accept this as a reasonable compromise. Rumiton 09:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to be judging the credibility of a source based upon their religion. That goes way beyond context and the subject of this article. It seems like a dicey slippery slope to me, and to use a source's religious affiliation as a reason to discredit their material is just incorrect, because that's not the subject of this article. What's Cagan's religion, for instance, and why is it that her book is so pro-Rawat? I'd like to explore Cagan's religious affiliation to the same extent you are proposing on other published writers. See my point? These people are scholars of religions, not religious scholars. Momento was incorrect to say "someone is a Christian first, scholar second" because there's no basis by which to make that claim about someone without evidence. Besides, once again, this article is "Prem Rawat" not "Joe Bloe" scholar of nrms. Many of the scholars, like Melton, are affiliated with Christian organizations, but where the rubber meets the road, if they have been published, that means they're reliable sources and that needs to be accepted without this guilt by association type of rationaliztion for excluding any particular published source. Their religions are immaterial to this subject, and I would think that it goes beyond adding context. To put so much attention on the religious affiliation of these people is original research for purposes of this article. It constitutes editorializing their religious beliefs and how that effects their writings about Prem Rawat. It's a highly questionable writing tactic, isn't NPOV, and needs to stop. I'd like to remind people of the wiki saying about being mercilessly edited. You guys chose to put your draft live by taking a vote, not by reaching concensus. And don't forget, something isn't libel if it's true.  :) Sylviecyn 12:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with the most of what you say here. My objections to a limited few were based on their demonstrated biases, such as Kranenborg's advice on how to evangelize premies. I have no objection to Melton whatsoever, as while he has a POV and bias, he has not demonstrated an explicit bias. Also, please note that while I objected to the evangelizing advice and extreme minority claims, that I have not objected to Kranenborg as an overall source. If he independently verifies other sources, or vice-versa, there's no reason to exclude his claims. Their faith is fairly immaterial, but their stated bias is material. I do not believe this is the same, as some of the best religious scholars and theologians in the world, including the study of "pagan" faiths and NRMs, are life-long Catholic priests. Vassyana 13:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The number of scholars who have written extensively about Rawat is so limited that a statement by one scholar is never an "extreme minority claim". Not a single extensive reputable biography exists of Rawat. In the case when there are multiple reliable scholarly biographies, such as e.g. Adolf Hitler it is possible to identify "extreme minority claims". Andries 13:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There are dozens of reliable references about, and including reasonable amounts of information about, Rawat, DLM and Elan Vital, written from a wide variety of persepctives. A single source claim is definitely an "extreme minority claim". Vassyana 15:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I have yet to find one single reliable source that extensively treats Rawat's life. The focus of religious scholars etc. was never Rawat, but always the DLM. Andries 15:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of what Sylviecyn wrote. But the subject is not mathematics or physics, so in practice, but not in theory, even religious scholars and psychologists of religions who attempted to write neutrally and who are affiliated with respected academic institutions (or published in universitity magazines about religious movements) like Melton, Kranenborg, Hummel, Van der Lans, Haan have some bias. I have yet to find one religious scholar who is devoid of bias in his writings. I think the bias of the follower Geaves is much bigger than all the others. Andries 12:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

See my comments to Sylvie above and to you below. Additionally, using Geaves is comparing apples and oranges. Geaves is used to verify non-contentious claims in harmony with the majority of sources. If Geaves were used to support a unique claim, or that of a very small minority, I would equally object to his bias and use. Vassyana 13:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That's incorrect, Vassyana. The majority of sources don't have to be in harmony with each other. Where did you get that policy? Ron Geaves is used by adherents to further promote a pro-Rawat POV. He also happens to be a decades-long devotee of Rawat who puts a positive spin on Rawat in his writings about the same. This statement of yours about apples and oranges, confirms to me that you don't understand the nuances of this subject well enough to judge the article at all. Once again, reliable sources don't have to be neutral (who ever said that?!?) if they are reliable sources, and there's no policy that states the requirement of many, or multiple sources to be in harmony. That's an unusual interpretation of NPOV. Thanks. Sylviecyn 15:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE. Please review all of my recent comments re: bias and this issue. Vassyana 15:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

None of the writers that I cited have a generalized hostility towards Hinduism, or cults or new religious movements. I have been very careful not to use these writers. Some of the writers that I used voiced trenchant criticism towards the DLM or Prem Rawat. This trenchant criticism does not invalidate the reputability of their writings. I have used the publications of respected Dutch or German religious scholars where they tried to be neutrally, not their publications for their churches. I do not even know these writings. I have made only one exception to that i.e. Kranenborgs self-admitted Christian statement that he had clearly segregated in another section. Andries 11:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reinserted the Bio/Proposal

I have reinserted the Bio/Proposal based on the fact that Jossi, Rumiton, Vassyana (our independent reviewr) and I believe is "better written and organised" than the current messy article. Andries, let's hear your comments via the talk page not via reverts.Momento 20:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again Andries is asserting his anti Rawat bias by inserting the personal opinions of four Christian scholars into the "Teachings" section. We could, of course, insert many other opinions, but we have studiously avoided inserting individual scholars' "opinions" and instead provided a brief, neutral, overview of Rawat's teachings. Leaving readers to make their own enquiries and form their own opinions. We could insert Stephen J Hunt's opinion, that "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 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." Or Messer's opinion that - "He only said of other religions that he had come not to start a new church but to make perfect Christians, Buddhists, or Moslems. He denied that he himself was perfect, asserting only that he could show one perfection. "If you want to learn about mathematics, you go to a mathematics master. If you want to learn about perfection, you go to a Perfect Master." And he urged anyone who felt he had a way to know God to pursue that way and to keep him in reserve. "If you cannot find God any other way, then come to me." A substantial percentage of his devotees are, in fact, people who have seriously sought God or God realization on other paths, whether as devout Christians or Jews or as followers of other Eastern teachers". Any attempts to disturb the neutrality of this article will be resisted. I have removed Andries undiscussed edits.Momento 09:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't start a revert war, Momento. You chose to replace the original with your draft by counting votes, not reaching concensus. And you didn't give Andries even a week to work on his draft when you took months. This is the second time you replaced the original with your draft, so don't be surprised by others' edits. Also, please be careful not to use guilt by association as a reason to exclude any published source. Revert wars produce nothng but bad faith. Thanks. Sylviecyn 12:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see my other recent comments. On the draft going live, why is it problematic for an equally flawed article that is more consistent with policy and guidelines to placehold the main article while the draft editions are worked out? I agree the "vote" rationale is a bad one. However, I believe being more consistent with the rules is a valid rationale. Would you object to that reasoning? Vassyana 13:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have read your recent comments, vassyana. I didn't say the draft is "equally flawed" with the original article that was replaced. I said last week that there are parts of all versions that can work if people show a little patience. I don't see why there has been such a rush to replace the current article which has been there for years now. If the only goal is to create an article consistent with Wiki policy and guidelines, and not be truthful through verification using valid, available sources (and not misinterpreting them as Momento has done on some occasions) then it's not going to be a good article, nor biography. For instance, there are many sources that state that Rawat lives an oppulent lifestyle, and that he has lived this way since he was a young teenager. That's not an exceptional claim because it's not only the truth, but also verified by many reliable news sources as well as NRM scholars. It's not a stretch of the imagination to look at Rawat's homes, jets, helicopters, autos, small aircraft, etc., to see he in fact lives an oppulent lifestyle (right or wrong). I mean really! He was 22 when he got his own private jet to fly, including pilot training, at no cost to him personally. When the symbolic leader of a bona fide church (Elan Vital) in the U.S. flies a Gulfstream V, that's oppulent. He does not deny that he is very wealthy. Btw, Andries is correct about NPOV. The sources aren't neutral and shouldn't have to be. It's editors that must remain neutral. Rawat said this to his devotees in 1995. See See Rawat's Malibu home.

"You know some people don't like rich people. They have this idea or that idea of what it is to be rich. But they really don't know. It's not easy to be rich. It isn't. Once you've made your first million, you need another to protect it. Then you have two million, and you'll need another two million to protect those two million. Then you'll have four million and you'll need another four million to protect those four million, and then you'll have eight million. Of course then you'll need another 8 million to protect those eight million and then you'll have 16 million... it isn't easy, it's not what you think." Maharaji - Long Beach, December 1995

Sylviecyn 15:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a dispute about PR being a high net worth individual? I do not think so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not revert to the old version. I only tried to fix the objections to Momento's draft that I have voiced repeatedly since April and in quite detailed ways and hence Momento's justification for his revert that my edits were "undiscussed" is baseless. Andries 14:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not Christian scholars, but religious scholars or scholarly articles. See my edit dated 07:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC) at Talk:Prem_Rawat#The_point_of_Andries.27_proposal No, I did discuss my edits here. See e.g. Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 24 my comment on 10:49, 15 April 2007 and 16:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC) 17:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC) I have enough of your repeated removal of statements sourced to multiple reputable sources. I will request again formal mediation. Andries

Neutrality in Wikipedia means WP:NPOV which means reporting all significant viewpoints treated in reputable sources, even if the viewpoints are not neutral and even if you do not like or agree with the viewpoints. Andries 10:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Reender_Kranenborg/as_a_source_for_Wikipedia. I will create similar discussion pages for Paul Schnabel and Jan van der Lans. Andries 10:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Andries, please review our standards for undue weight. Single-source[1] claims, particularly those radically different from the majority of coverage, are not permitted. ("If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.") Hence, my request for strict sourcing above. Please consider our policies. Vassyana 13:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Vassyana, now I'm confused. Exactly what fact, claim, etc. are you objecting to here? Also, I think you're misinterpreting undue weight here. Please explain precisely what you're complaining about. Sylviecyn 15:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[1]Repetition of a single source is still a claim with a single source. It is not the same as independent repetition of a factual claim. Vassyana 13:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't dispute that, because it's common sense. I'm sure Andries understands it too. But that's not what I asked. What specific information about Rawat to you dispute here? Btw, I don't like how you are favoring adherents over non-adherents here. And I strongly suggest that jossi stop discussing and assessing what Andries does or doesn'tunderstand about Wiki policies. That's verging on personal attacks and uncalled for. Sylviecyn 15:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The entire claim that Rawat is a "charlatan" who was forced into the life a guru. The presentation of Rawat's close disciples as "security premies". Both very good examples. I am favoring what the sources I have reviewed report. I using the policies and guidelines that govern such evaluations. If that, from your perspective, favours the followers of Rawat, so be it. I will ask you to note that I removed information based on WP:NPA and WP:EL that is distinctly pro-Rawat, for example.[14] You could also note that I have politely warned Momento about some actions as well. I feel I am being even-handed in the that I am equally applying the rules. If policy concerns affect one side more than another, it is not bias, but a reflection of the article's state. Vassyana 16:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of Jossi, I find your assertion more than a little unfounded. As has been previously addressed, his behaviour in relation to the article is well within bounds.

That is not a personal attack. It is a personal opinion that I feel is necessary to make. He is not the only editor in Wikipedia that makes that mistake, and pointing that mistake is very much called for. We all need to understand and appreciate what this project is and what this project is not ≈ jossi ≈

(talk) 15:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Please give examples. I admit that I have made generalized criticism of Momento's editing behavior too, but I had backed it up with detailed examples. Andries 15:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You are making up policy about single source claims. There are not that many scholars who have written extensively about Rawat, so omitting scholars who make statements that he does not like, such as Momento does is undue weight. In addition, the statements about warnings against the "mind" that Momento removed were sourced to multiple reliable sources that. Andries 13:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

None of this is made up. This is from WP:Reliable sources

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people. Rumiton 14:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There are certainly more than enough scholarly appraisals for a consensus to emerge. The opinions of Van der Lans et al (charlatan etc) are way off. They are "exceptional." Rumiton 15:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No, classification as "charlatan" of a guru who

1. makes exceptional claims about himseld and inner peace and world peace and

2. has life style that is at variance with the duties that are generally accepted within Hinduism for a guru.

is not an exceptional claim.

And there are two reputable sources for that. (Kranenborg and Van der Lans). So taken the limited amount of scholarly articles about Rawat, this is more than a tiny minority view and not undue weight. Andries 15:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

And that is original research, which cannot be used to support exceptional claims. Vassyana 16:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I only argued that a statement voiced in reputable sources is not an exceptional claim and I can do by voicing original research on the talk page. Why do you think that the statement that Rawat is a charlatan is an exceptional claim? I had already asked you that but you did not reply. Andries 16:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have repeatedly stated it is a single source claim at variance with the majority of sources, hence it is an exception claim requiring exceptional sources. Additionally, it is not just the pejorative name that is exceptional, but rather than entire claim that Rawat is a "charlatan" who was forced into the life a guru Vassyana 16:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not a single source claim, as I have repeatedly stated and no I see no contradiction with other sources. No, it is not strange to believe that Rawat felt pressured by circumstances and by his mother and the rest of the family when his father passed away and when there probably no source of income for his mother, him and his three brothers. I think we should drop the whole discussion about exceptional claims, because assessing what claims are exceptional is too subjective. Andries 16:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

has life style that is at variance with the duties that are generally accepted within Hinduism for a guru.???? Who is that, Andries? 15:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Prem Rawat did not exactly follow a moderate life style that is generally accepted as a duty and appropriate for Hindu gurus. I cannot mention sources for this, but this should be taken into consideration why Rawat was labelled a charlatan and why Rawat received such trenchant criticism for various sources. There are gurus who teach and taught more or less the same as Rawat but who are far less controversial. Andries 15:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[moved to user talk namespace] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I would ask that everyone drop complaints about other editors. If someone wants to address issues directly with an editor, they may do so on that editor's talk page. If there are serious issues with an editor, they can be raised on the sysop noticeboard or a WP:RFC/U can be filed. The repeated raising of user issues is not helpful to the atmosphere here. They may or may not be valid concerns, but this is not the appropriate venue. Vassyana 16:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we please get back to discussing the issue at hand i.e. Momento's revert of my additions. [15] I also object to a generalization that is backed up by primary source material i.e.

"Rawat's consistent claim is that the techniques of Knowledge, with the help and guidance of the guru, enable the inner divinity to be experienced i.e. .<ref>Peace Bomb satsang, 11 October 1970, India Gate, New Delhi, India (translated from Hindi). <br /><small>"Receive this Knowledge and know God within yourself. That pure energy, God, is within your own heart."</small> </ref>"

Momento backs up generalizations with primary source material and removes statements (such as surrender to the guru i.e. Rawat) that are sourced to multiple reliable secondary sources (Hummel and Kranenborg). I wonder why people who considered the bio-proposal so much better than the old version did not notice this deteroriation in the use of sources.

My only removal was a general statement about Kabir and Sant Mat that did not make a connection to Rawat. Momento did not revert my removal.

Andries 20:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the sentence you object to is adequately covered by the cited comments from; Hadden that - "The meditation techniques the Maharaji teaches today are the same he learned from his father, Hans Ji Maharaj, who, in turn, learned them from his spiritual teacher [Sarupanand], 'Knowledge', claims Maharaji, 'is a way to be able to take 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... ". Rawat's comment - "Receive this Knowledge and know God within yourself. That pure energy, God, is within your own heart." And Hunt's comment that - "The process of reaching the true self within can only be achieved by the individual, but with the guidance and help of a teacher." If you feel it needs another souce, feel free to find one. As for "surrender to the Guru", this is not unique to Rawat, it is part of Sant tradition, perhaps you should replace the Kabir quote you removed.Momento 23:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a large part of the point. It is a strawman argument to say "sources claim that Prem Rawat did not live up to the precepts of Hinduism." His whole life, Prem Rawat has never been a Hindu, nor advocated Hindu values, nor did his father, nor did his father's Guru. In fact the Sant Mat tradition was/is a powerful rebellion against Hinduism, with its complex rituals and fairytale ideations. It is like criticising the early Christians for not being good Jews, or Martin Luther for not being a good Catholic. The Sant Mat exponents supported two things: The strengthening of the inner experience, and the honouring of the Guru who encourages and makes this strengthening possible. Prem Rawat has done this consistently and effectively all his life. When we quote sources, they need to be sources that understand THIS point, not just generally well-informed religious scholars, otherwise we will never get a coherent article. Rumiton 09:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No, we in Wikipedia do not select reputable sources who have understood Prem Rawat the way you understand Rawat. Andries 09:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Make up your mind Andries. One moment you're saying we should take into consideration your OR that "Rawat didn't follow a life style that is accepted as appropriate for Hindu gurus", when you say you can't find sources to support it. And the next minute you're saying that "we in Wikipedia do not select reputable sources (based on) who have understood Prem Rawat the way you understand Rawat". So you want us to accept your OR with no supporting sources but we shouldn't select sources based on whether they "understand Prem Rawat the way you understand Rawat". I'll stick with Wiki policy, it's much clearer.Momento 10:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I admit that some of the arguments that I made here on the talk page are my personal opinions and speculations that are not reported in reputable sources. I am only voicing them to show that some reputable sources did not make exceptional claims or voice extreme minority view, such as argued by Rumiton and others. I have no intention to insert my personal opinions and speculations in the article unless they also happen to be reported by reputable sources. Assessing what claims are "exceptional claims" or "extreme minority views" in the absence of multiple reliable sources that treat the subject extensively is a largely subjective matter and should not phrased as if it supported by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Andries 10:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather than just admit "that some of the arguments that you made here on the talk page are your personal opinions and speculations that are not reported in reputable sources", why don't you cease making them. And instead of claiming that " Assessing what claims are "exceptional claims" or "extreme minority views" is a largely subjective matter and should not phrased as if it supported by Wikipedia policies and guidelines", why don't we just accept the Wiki policies and guidelines regarding "Exceptional claims", which say -

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.

Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding biographies of living people.

Momento 10:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Momento, I think that the arguments that are used by you and others to support your view that some claims are "exceptional claims" and "extreme minority views" are based on your personal opinions and speculations and not founded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Again, the subject is not Adolf Hitler where there are multiple reliable soruces that extensively treat to subject which thus enables contributors to assess objectively which views are minority views and which are not. I will stop voicing my personal opinions and speculations on the talk page as soon as we stop largely subjecively assess what claims are "exceptional claims" and "extreme minority views".Andries 10:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is supportive of the shorter version, then. As your opinion is that there are "no multiple reliable sources" (which btw is incorrect given the numerous sources found), then the article should be shorter and simpler as per the current version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I am fed up with Momento's behavior of repeated reverts of statements sourced to multiple reliable sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=134106141&oldid=134100298] Andries 16:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC) I filed a requested for mediation. I listed as involved parties Andries, Jossi, Sylviecyn, Vassyana and Rumiton Please agree to mediation in the appropriate section Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat#Parties.27_agreement_to_mediate. Andries 17:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi seems to think that only Andries and Momento are parties. I removed all other parties. Andries 17:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hope the mediation can address the specific dispute that you and Momento seem to be having at this point. Good luck with it and hope it resolves that issue. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving right along

Andries claims he's "fed up with Momento's behavior of repeated reverts of statements sourced to multiple reliable sources". And demonstrates this by reverting the work of several editors in order to insert "One religious scholar argued..."!!! Hold on Andries, since when has "one scholar" been "multiple sources"? No wonder you're fed up with my editing. And I won't mention the two grammatical errors you introduced in just four sentences or the OR you created by blending two quotes. Andries you obviously don't care enough about this article to follow Wiki policies, English grammar or even your own rules.Momento 17:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, may be that one statement was sourced to one scholar, but others were not. And I can most probably find a corroboration from another source. Melton comes close to what this one religious scholar Hummel wrote. Feel free to correct the grammar in my additions, but do not remove them without good reason. Why this nitpicking about my small mistakes when your mistake of removing statements that you do not like is huge. Andries 17:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, Rumiton, Vassyana, SylvieCyn it's time to ban Andries from editing this article. His above statement admits his mistake, tells me to correct his grammar and not to nitpick his small mistakes and then he simply reverts back to his mistake filled edit without correcting it. Enough is enough.Momento 17:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what grammatical errors you refer to. But it takes so little effort to fix grammatical errors in my additions. That is not a valid excuse to remove all of my additions. Andries 17:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have asked everyone (see above) to take complaints about other editors to more appropriate venues. This was not directly solely at a single discussion, but a general request. Such criticisms and disputes are disruptive and poisonous to the environment here. Vassyana 18:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think labeling the public page of this article as "locked etc" is an unfair imposition on this article and the reading public. I'm more than happy to promise to take a week off from this article. I'm sure Andries would be happy to while our mediation is settled.Momento 23:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring is not the solution to article disputes. Article protection is not imposed on every battle, so to speak. It has been asked many times for the edit warring to cease in this article. Sometimes it is quieted for a while, but the edit wars here are recurring, along with the finger-pointing and poisonous atmosphere that accompanies them. The protection lasts for one week. You may take a break, try to reconcile with other editors, build up other articles, etc. All that cannot be done is editing the main article while the protection is in place. The article isn't going to go anywhere during the week. :) Relax, stay cool and do what you think is best during the week off from the mainspace article. Vassyana 03:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not like the protection either. If both Andries and Momento agree to not edit the article until during the next week, I will be happy to unprotect it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That would seem appropriate. Vassyana 13:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen any point in editing the main article while it has been so unstable, so I have made the few changes I thought were useful to the Bio Proposal instead. I will continue doing this, so it doesn't matter much to me whether the main article is locked or not. But somehow, this issue must be resolved. (See all my recent comments on context, unverifiable foreign language cites, single sources, extraordinary POVs, straw man arguments, not a good Hindu, etc.) Rumiton 12:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It's me and you, Sylvie. You wanna arm wrestle? Rumiton 14:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to fight anymore. I'm too old for this and life is too short. I'm disappointed that the article needed to be locked and with all the edit-warring. I hope everybody can step back and take a chill pill. I dunno. If folks can't control themselves and keep revert-warring, maybe it should stay locked for the week. It wouldn't be the end of the world. I was gonna do some basic copy-editing this week on the article that wouldn't affect the content. That certainly can wait a week. Revert wars don't accomplish anything. Sylviecyn 19:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I promise not to edit this article for a week.Momento 22:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Article unprotected

... per request on WP:RPP. Keep your promises! - Alison ☺ 19:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Bio Proposal

I have been working on the bio proposal that Momento started. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal I don't think there are any controversial issues with what I have done, it's mostly fonts, grammar and punctuations plus a list of venues I got from TPRF via the German language page, but would anyone here like to have a look over it and let me know if they see problems? Otherwise I'll swap them over tomorrow. (I am aware that some issues remain, especially vastly improving the "claims of divinity" paragraph, otherwise known as "it was mostly his mother's fault." :-) Just can't see how to do it and be fair to everyone right now.) Rumiton 14:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Take a look over the objections of Andries, Sylvie, Pat, et al to see what you might be able to address in that shorter draft. Do you think all the reasonable objections have been addressed? If you were playing devil's advocate, what would you say is wrong with the proposal draft? How does the proposal draft fit with Wikipedia policies and common sense? How could it be improved in that regard? Some thoughts to ponder. Vassyana 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll go through the previous objections. Rumiton 07:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I do have a problem with this paragraph:

Prem Rawat has addressed students at the following universities: Oxford (United Kingdom); Harvard, (Boston, Massachussetts); Malaysia University, (Kuala Lumpur); University of Salamanca, (Spain); University of Colorado, (Boulder); University of California, (Berkeley); Miami Dade College, (Florida); Griffith University, (Brisbane, Australia); Nova South-Eastern University, (Ft. Lauderdale, Florida).

This is very misleading statement because it implies that Rawat addressed students of the respective universities. The fact is that EV rented halls for Rawat's events at those universities, and Rawat spoke to his own followers at those places. There's a similar misleading thing going on with the United Nations, at which he has never spoken, and again halls in facilities were rented and he was photographed with the UN emblem behind him. Also, I don't like the tiny font size of the text in the footnotes. It's barely readable. Does it matter if it's larger and more readable because that won't change word count? Thanks... Sylviecyn 23:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you you may be getting influenced by what we might call "angry others" here Sylvie. I have seen the video of the Griffith University program and the hall appeared to be packed by under-25s. There were quite a few old faces among them too, some of them premies, but "students" is what most of them clearly were and Prem Rawat addressed them accordingly. Your comments on the UN thing are discouraging as well. 18 months ago I was at an event at (Australian) Government House Canberra sponsored by the United Nations Association as part of their anniversary celebrations. Two (or three) UNA officials spoke (at length) about past and current, successful and failed UN peace initiatives before the MC introduced Maharaji to "give the personal view of peace." The hall was largely filled with Federal Government and UNA members. They had invited Maharaji there, and said so. Rumiton 07:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I used the small font to better resemble other successful Wiki bio references, and for consistency. There was a mixture of sizes before. It took a LOT to get it to work, but if it isn't liked I'll change it back. Rumiton 07:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SylvieCyn. "Students" isn't a good description of the audience. But I think the paragraph itself is out of proportion to the rest of the article. I don't think speaking at a few universities warrants a sentence, let alone a list.Momento 01:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Clearly I don't agree, and as I said, I got the list from the German language page, where someone clearly thought it was of sufficient interest. Short isn't everything. The previous complaint about "bloating" had to do with the lack of nourishment in the article, not merely the size. Rumiton 07:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, a few changes have been made to the current article that I think are good. For instance, noting that Rawat had worn the Krishna outfit in 75. Otherwise it looks like he did this whole new thing. Also the 707 sentence, I think the current article reads better. And "teachiings" has moved closer to the sources.Momento 01:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll have another look at what is there right now before asking about swapping again. Rumiton 07:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The picture featured in the article, with the UN logo is of the 60th anniversary of the UN, where PR was invited to speak [16]. Many other Universities, such as Griffith University, invited PR to speak there [17], as well as Thammassat University [18]. In all these occasions members of the Faculty had opening speeches and the events were attended by faculty members and students. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, how about I put in "spoke to faculty members AND students." ? Rumiton 07:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You need sources for the statements other than TPRF, EV, etc. I'm also concerned you went to a German site for the info, given all the arguments with Andries about use of foreign language sources. It's not credible to say that Rawat spoke at say, Harvard, to students and faculty when in fact it was during the summer break (August 9th at Harvard, for instance), and the majority of attendees were his own followers. If you can provide a secondary source, such as a webpage from the respective universities, United Nations, or other organizations, showing that information about his being invited to a university to speak, that would be much better. The rule of thumb should be that if his supporting organizations rented the hall and had control over a program itself, say, at Harvard or anywhere else, that's not the same thing as someone being invited by Harvard University "to speak to students and faculty." It's misleading. Plus, one cannot look at photos of an audience and determine who was in attendance. Also, is anyone going to fill in the rest of the Cagan footnotes? I can't get my hands on a copy of it here in Vermont, because none of our of the libraries have a copy, including all the university/college libraries. Sylviecyn 11:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless references talk about who attended the talks, or that the meetings were membership orientated events, why not simply mention that he had "speaking engagements" (or other neutral equivalent)? If the sources don't say who the audience was, then adding such information is effectively original research. Where I live there are a number of colleges and (generally) such engagements are open to the public, making blanket statements about audiences invalid. Just a thought. Vassyana 11:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit more complicated than that. No one can enter a live Rawat program without Elan Vital-certified Smartcard photo identification that's required of people who have "learned the techniques of Knowledge." One cannot just walk into a Rawat program freely as one would do at normal public events. People must pre-register using their SmartCads and they are swiped upon entry to verify registration and identity as a premie/student. It's quite the same as a church membership card would be, except churches don't normally require IDs of their members, especially in the United States, where Elan Vital is a registered church and has been since its inception as DLM in the early 70s. The implication by adherents is that Rawat was invited to speak at these venues by the venues themselves, i.e., Harvard, the UN, Oxford, when in fact, it's his own organizations that rent the venues and organize the events from soup to nuts, including very stringent security for entry and attendance. This kind of advertising has been done extensively with the Bangkok United Nations conference center event, which was merely a rented hall, and later advertised as "Prem Rawat speaks at United Nations in Bangkok," using the UN emblem behind him in photos to give more credibility than he deserves, as if he spoke to a UN delegation. I think the entire paragraph should be deleted in order to avoid original research and the potential for misleading the readers here. It's quite clear throughout the article that he travels a lot and gives talks to his students. I'm not disputing that he flies his Gulfstream around the world and speaks. Sylviecyn 13:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sylvie, you are not doing yourself a service here, what you have written just isn't true. I have attended 2 Australian public events in the last 2 years, and entry was by ticket, just like any other venue. All right, this is OR, but it is true! There are premie-only events, and they are accessed by ID card, but when he holds an event for the public it is ticket-entry. In Melbourne, 18 months ago there were hundreds of people present who had only seen him on television and arranged to attend on-line. All right, I'll stop this OR stuff, but it is all easily verifiable. Anyway, I will get rid of the University stuff, it is causing too much trouble. Rainer tells me it caused trouble at the German Wiki site, too. Rumiton 14:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There is some serious misinformation being spread here. As far as I can see all these Universality speaking engagements are all reported on the Prem Rawat Foundation website and not on the Elan vital website, so this all thing of smartcard is nonsensical. As I said, the image in this article with the logo of the UN is from an event in San Francisco to which PR was invited to speak at the 60th anniversary of the UN charter. This kind of misinformation is one known to be made by his detractors, but the reality of it is that these speaking engagements are open to the public and well attended by staff, faculty, and students. In any case, until we find secondary sources about these speaking engagements, we ought to make a shirt statement and leave it at that. I found a couple of secondary sources already and will provide them later on. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Please don't accuse me of spreading misinformation. I don't do that and I consider it a personal attack even for you to imply that, Jossi. The TPRF website isn't an adequate source. If you have multiple secondary sources that support the claims that Rawat was indeed been invited by the University officials and actual UN officials, then that's fine, I won't dispute it. But, it must be a cite by actual entity officials, not ancillary folks. I just don't think that TPRF press releases can be considered reliable sources for this purpose. Btw, I don't consider Andrea Cagan to be a reliable source. It's already obvious that Mighty River Press and Pragmapress are owned and operated by devotees of Prem Rawat. Peace Is Possible is a book that each of those publishers admit is their first published book, and they dont'have the credibility required to be reliable and well-known publishers by Wikipedia standards with regards to book publishers. That's very clear. Anyone can put up a website and say they're publishing a book. Anyone can publish a book. It's "a hair this close" to being anything but a Rawat vanity piece published on behalf of Rawat by his devotees in both countries by his own devotees. Clever, but doesn't pass the cigar test. However, I don't see why quantity is better than quality with regards to Rawat's life. Why is it so necessary to repeat how many people have ever heard of him, listened to him once, and include those numbers in the mix of actual students? It's misleading to say the least. Btw, I intend to include in the article, the recent figure of 1,964 of active contributors to Elan Vital in the United States, which is what Elan Vital, U.S. declares as current contributors. Because the entity itself is the only source of numbers, this figure not only seems correct, but is the only current source available for active membership numbers. Frankly, I was shocked to see such a low number but, there it is. It's a far cry from 50,000 "practictioners of Knowledge" as cited in the article by the Mormon guy. Sylviecyn 19:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"Active contributors to EV in the US" isn't the same as "practitioners of Knowledge". And where does it say "50,000 practitioners"?Momento 19:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The info about the number of US contributors can be added to the Elan Vital article. This is not an article on Elan Vital. As for your other comments, I will ignore them as these have been already covered in detail in previous discussions. Also read WP:SELFPUB. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I am missing something? I do not see any text in the article about Universities, or about 50,000 adherents. What is this discussion about, the? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Rumiton added the university para to the bio/proposal and I can't find the 50,000 adherents either.Momento 22:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I took the uni ref out, with some disappointment, as it was about as uncontroversial as you can get. We will have to do much better than this if we are to reach consensus now on the really difficult issues. I don't know where the 50 000 figure came from. Rumiton 03:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I know you are editing the bio proposal but it wasn't uncontroversial the way you wrote it. Addressing "students" is ambiquous and inaccurate. Let's not add any more material, uncontroversial or otherwise, to this arrticle without discussing it first.Momento 09:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Bio Proposal

I have been working on the bio proposal that Momento started. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal I don't think there are any controversial issues with what I have done, it's mostly fonts, grammar and punctuations plus a list of venues I got from TPRF via the German language page, but would anyone here like to have a look over it and let me know if they see problems? Otherwise I'll swap them over tomorrow. (I am aware that some issues remain, especially vastly improving the "claims of divinity" paragraph, otherwise known as "it was mostly his mother's fault." :-) Just can't see how to do it and be fair to everyone right now.) Rumiton 14:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Take a look over the objections of Andries, Sylvie, Pat, et al to see what you might be able to address in that shorter draft. Do you think all the reasonable objections have been addressed? If you were playing devil's advocate, what would you say is wrong with the proposal draft? How does the proposal draft fit with Wikipedia policies and common sense? How could it be improved in that regard? Some thoughts to ponder. Vassyana 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll go through the previous objections. Rumiton 07:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I do have a problem with this paragraph:

Prem Rawat has addressed students at the following universities: Oxford (United Kingdom); Harvard, (Boston, Massachussetts); Malaysia University, (Kuala Lumpur); University of Salamanca, (Spain); University of Colorado, (Boulder); University of California, (Berkeley); Miami Dade College, (Florida); Griffith University, (Brisbane, Australia); Nova South-Eastern University, (Ft. Lauderdale, Florida).

This is very misleading statement because it implies that Rawat addressed students of the respective universities. The fact is that EV rented halls for Rawat's events at those universities, and Rawat spoke to his own followers at those places. There's a similar misleading thing going on with the United Nations, at which he has never spoken, and again halls in facilities were rented and he was photographed with the UN emblem behind him. Also, I don't like the tiny font size of the text in the footnotes. It's barely readable. Does it matter if it's larger and more readable because that won't change word count? Thanks... Sylviecyn 23:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you you may be getting influenced by what we might call "angry others" here Sylvie. I have seen the video of the Griffith University program and the hall appeared to be packed by under-25s. There were quite a few old faces among them too, some of them premies, but "students" is what most of them clearly were and Prem Rawat addressed them accordingly. Your comments on the UN thing are discouraging as well. 18 months ago I was at an event at (Australian) Government House Canberra sponsored by the United Nations Association as part of their anniversary celebrations. Two (or three) UNA officials spoke (at length) about past and current, successful and failed UN peace initiatives before the MC introduced Maharaji to "give the personal view of peace." The hall was largely filled with Federal Government and UNA members. They had invited Maharaji there, and said so. Rumiton 07:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I used the small font to better resemble other successful Wiki bio references, and for consistency. There was a mixture of sizes before. It took a LOT to get it to work, but if it isn't liked I'll change it back. Rumiton 07:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SylvieCyn. "Students" isn't a good description of the audience. But I think the paragraph itself is out of proportion to the rest of the article. I don't think speaking at a few universities warrants a sentence, let alone a list.Momento 01:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Clearly I don't agree, and as I said, I got the list from the German language page, where someone clearly thought it was of sufficient interest. Short isn't everything. The previous complaint about "bloating" had to do with the lack of nourishment in the article, not merely the size. Rumiton 07:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, a few changes have been made to the current article that I think are good. For instance, noting that Rawat had worn the Krishna outfit in 75. Otherwise it looks like he did this whole new thing. Also the 707 sentence, I think the current article reads better. And "teachiings" has moved closer to the sources.Momento 01:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll have another look at what is there right now before asking about swapping again. Rumiton 07:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The picture featured in the article, with the UN logo is of the 60th anniversary of the UN, where PR was invited to speak [19]. Many other Universities, such as Griffith University, invited PR to speak there [20], as well as Thammassat University [21]. In all these occasions members of the Faculty had opening speeches and the events were attended by faculty members and students. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, how about I put in "spoke to faculty members AND students." ? Rumiton 07:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You need sources for the statements other than TPRF, EV, etc. I'm also concerned you went to a German site for the info, given all the arguments with Andries about use of foreign language sources. It's not credible to say that Rawat spoke at say, Harvard, to students and faculty when in fact it was during the summer break (August 9th at Harvard, for instance), and the majority of attendees were his own followers. If you can provide a secondary source, such as a webpage from the respective universities, United Nations, or other organizations, showing that information about his being invited to a university to speak, that would be much better. The rule of thumb should be that if his supporting organizations rented the hall and had control over a program itself, say, at Harvard or anywhere else, that's not the same thing as someone being invited by Harvard University "to speak to students and faculty." It's misleading. Plus, one cannot look at photos of an audience and determine who was in attendance. Also, is anyone going to fill in the rest of the Cagan footnotes? I can't get my hands on a copy of it here in Vermont, because none of our of the libraries have a copy, including all the university/college libraries. Sylviecyn 11:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless references talk about who attended the talks, or that the meetings were membership orientated events, why not simply mention that he had "speaking engagements" (or other neutral equivalent)? If the sources don't say who the audience was, then adding such information is effectively original research. Where I live there are a number of colleges and (generally) such engagements are open to the public, making blanket statements about audiences invalid. Just a thought. Vassyana 11:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit more complicated than that. No one can enter a live Rawat program without Elan Vital-certified Smartcard photo identification that's required of people who have "learned the techniques of Knowledge." One cannot just walk into a Rawat program freely as one would do at normal public events. People must pre-register using their SmartCads and they are swiped upon entry to verify registration and identity as a premie/student. It's quite the same as a church membership card would be, except churches don't normally require IDs of their members, especially in the United States, where Elan Vital is a registered church and has been since its inception as DLM in the early 70s. The implication by adherents is that Rawat was invited to speak at these venues by the venues themselves, i.e., Harvard, the UN, Oxford, when in fact, it's his own organizations that rent the venues and organize the events from soup to nuts, including very stringent security for entry and attendance. This kind of advertising has been done extensively with the Bangkok United Nations conference center event, which was merely a rented hall, and later advertised as "Prem Rawat speaks at United Nations in Bangkok," using the UN emblem behind him in photos to give more credibility than he deserves, as if he spoke to a UN delegation. I think the entire paragraph should be deleted in order to avoid original research and the potential for misleading the readers here. It's quite clear throughout the article that he travels a lot and gives talks to his students. I'm not disputing that he flies his Gulfstream around the world and speaks. Sylviecyn 13:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sylvie, you are not doing yourself a service here, what you have written just isn't true. I have attended 2 Australian public events in the last 2 years, and entry was by ticket, just like any other venue. All right, this is OR, but it is true! There are premie-only events, and they are accessed by ID card, but when he holds an event for the public it is ticket-entry. In Melbourne, 18 months ago there were hundreds of people present who had only seen him on television and arranged to attend on-line. All right, I'll stop this OR stuff, but it is all easily verifiable. Anyway, I will get rid of the University stuff, it is causing too much trouble. Rainer tells me it caused trouble at the German Wiki site, too. Rumiton 14:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There is some serious misinformation being spread here. As far as I can see all these Universality speaking engagements are all reported on the Prem Rawat Foundation website and not on the Elan vital website, so this all thing of smartcard is nonsensical. As I said, the image in this article with the logo of the UN is from an event in San Francisco to which PR was invited to speak at the 60th anniversary of the UN charter. This kind of misinformation is one known to be made by his detractors, but the reality of it is that these speaking engagements are open to the public and well attended by staff, faculty, and students. In any case, until we find secondary sources about these speaking engagements, we ought to make a shirt statement and leave it at that. I found a couple of secondary sources already and will provide them later on. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Please don't accuse me of spreading misinformation. I don't do that and I consider it a personal attack even for you to imply that, Jossi. The TPRF website isn't an adequate source. If you have multiple secondary sources that support the claims that Rawat was indeed been invited by the University officials and actual UN officials, then that's fine, I won't dispute it. But, it must be a cite by actual entity officials, not ancillary folks. I just don't think that TPRF press releases can be considered reliable sources for this purpose. Btw, I don't consider Andrea Cagan to be a reliable source. It's already obvious that Mighty River Press and Pragmapress are owned and operated by devotees of Prem Rawat. Peace Is Possible is a book that each of those publishers admit is their first published book, and they dont'have the credibility required to be reliable and well-known publishers by Wikipedia standards with regards to book publishers. That's very clear. Anyone can put up a website and say they're publishing a book. Anyone can publish a book. It's "a hair this close" to being anything but a Rawat vanity piece published on behalf of Rawat by his devotees in both countries by his own devotees. Clever, but doesn't pass the cigar test. However, I don't see why quantity is better than quality with regards to Rawat's life. Why is it so necessary to repeat how many people have ever heard of him, listened to him once, and include those numbers in the mix of actual students? It's misleading to say the least. Btw, I intend to include in the article, the recent figure of 1,964 of active contributors to Elan Vital in the United States, which is what Elan Vital, U.S. declares as current contributors. Because the entity itself is the only source of numbers, this figure not only seems correct, but is the only current source available for active membership numbers. Frankly, I was shocked to see such a low number but, there it is. It's a far cry from 50,000 "practictioners of Knowledge" as cited in the article by the Mormon guy. Sylviecyn 19:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"Active contributors to EV in the US" isn't the same as "practitioners of Knowledge". And where does it say "50,000 practitioners"?Momento 19:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The info about the number of US contributors can be added to the Elan Vital article. This is not an article on Elan Vital. As for your other comments, I will ignore them as these have been already covered in detail in previous discussions. Also read WP:SELFPUB. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I am missing something? I do not see any text in the article about Universities, or about 50,000 adherents. What is this discussion about, the? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Rumiton added the university para to the bio/proposal and I can't find the 50,000 adherents either.Momento 22:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I took the uni ref out, with some disappointment, as it was about as uncontroversial as you can get. We will have to do much better than this if we are to reach consensus now on the really difficult issues. I don't know where the 50 000 figure came from. Rumiton 03:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I know you are editing the bio proposal but it wasn't uncontroversial the way you wrote it. Addressing "students" is ambiquous and inaccurate. Let's not add any more material, uncontroversial or otherwise, to this arrticle without discussing it first.Momento 09:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

On the German site it simply says: Er hielt Vorträge an folgenden international renommierten Universitäten: ... (He gave addresses at following internatially renowned universities:...), and there is no statement on the type of audience. A small communication took place about whether Prem Rawat was really invited or just rented a hall, and that was settled. Notability is additionally given in that some light is shed on his strategic modus operandi. So perhaps the editors could agree on such a clause. Also note that Unipaz/Florianopolis had to be deleted from the list, as it is not considered a university in Europe, might eventually be mentioned in another context. (Florianopolis seems to have a “real” university, too. Ambiguity should be avoided). --Rainer P. 10:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Rainer. It's gone now. Too much trouble. But I have made some grammatical changes to the Proposal, and also quite a few to the references. I will add them to the main article if there is no objection. Rumiton 11:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the rest of this page? Anyway, Rumiton, I mistakenly referred to a 50,000 adherents sentence that was in the original article, not the bio/proposal. Thanks for removing that paragraph. Sylviecyn 12:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of invisible message

I removed the invisible message about the summary, because it falsely suggests that there was ever something as an agreement about the current summary. The current version did not ever come close. There used to be a summary that was close to an agreement but that was removed by Momento in his bio-proposal. Andries 12:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes. Please read above about protection and unprotection of this article. Continuing edit disputes will result in page protection being reinstated. Vassyana 18:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you please revert my edits on the basis of arguments why my edits are bad? Or is that too much effort? Andries 18:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What about the mediation you requested? Rather than continue adding tags, or doing minutiae edits, here, why don't you start with the mediation process? 18:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Done, as requested. Please stop this disruption. Vassyana 18:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana, do you think that the following statement that I removed is true?

Dear contributor: The paragraphs in the introduction of this article reached :::::their form through heated debate and careful wording via the contributions of :::::many editors over an extended period of time. Please do not update its text :::::without first placing your proposal for a change in Talk:Prem Rawat to :::::allow discussion for at least 24 hours.

If not, how is removing this statement disruptive? If yes, where is the "heated debate and careful wording via the contributions of many editors over an extended period of time"? You cannot find it for this version. Andries 18:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If you feel this is true, please raise the issue here and build some consensus. The page was protected due to edit warring and competing edits. The protection was removed on an honour system. Please discuss changes with the other editors here and build some agreement. Please be willing to compromise and work with others. For example, what if the above message were changed? For example:

Note: This article is often the subject of heated debate and careful compromises. Please discuss significant changes at Talk:Prem Rawat to allow discussion for at least 24 hours.

Would something like that be less objectionable to you? How do other contributors feel? Vassyana 19:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The current version is not the result of "careful compromise". It does not even come close. Andries 20:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

How about -

This article is going for GA status. Please discuss any changes at Talk:Prem Rawat to allow discussion for at least 24 hours

Momento 21:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest: "This article is a candidate for GA status. This has been declined before, when the article still bore the scars of edit warring. To prevent this happening again, please submit any proposed changes on the Discussion Page and allow 24 hours for other editors to consider them and respond." Rumiton 03:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Andries, perhaps you don't appreciate how much work and compromise has gone into this article? Do you think I like it all? I have had 35 merry years with Maharaji, and have seen his work evolve from awkward beginnings into something modern, relevant, sweet and beautiful. To me, this article, with its inclusion of supercilious Time articles and semi-misguided 1970s scholars does not in any way do it justice. I've had to accept that I can't control the article the way I would like to. No doubt Jossi and Momento feel much the same way. Rumiton 13:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Rumiton, Andries has been working on this article for years. So, you come along, rewrite the entire thing, and expect people to accept it "as is" after two months of work? That's outrageous. Once again, this is not supposed to be an advertorial based on your personal experiences. It's supposed to be a biography, and that incudes reporting what happened in Rawat's entire life, including controversies during his childhood appearance in the west. According to Wiki policy, the only notable thing about Rawat is his career as a child guru. Otherwise, the vast majority of people don't even know who he is and he doesn't even rate having an article, except for his childhood (up to age 16). He has no name recognition in the U.S. and the world. That means the 70s news reports and even reports by scholars should be allowed without censorship. Otherwise, it's not passing muster for an NPOV article at all. Also, what Wiki guideline allows for this "invisible message" that's tantamount to locking the article up to anyone but Rawat's students and Vassyana? How was it decided that your draft was completed? I certainly haven't concluded that, neither have PatW and Andries, or are you counting pro-Rawat votes again? Please show me a guideline that provides for invisible messages disallowing editors from freely editing any article. Meanwhile, any progress on the Cagan cites? I don't want to have to purchase it. Thank you. Sylviecyn 14:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just had to spend AUS$110 with Amazon for an unread (unsurprisingly) old copy of Andries' wretched Hummel book. Goes with the territory, I'm afraid. Rumiton 13:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(a) Many people, including me have worked on this article for years. (b) There is no such "wiki policy" as you mention. (c) There is no censorship in Wikipedia. (d) This article is not about "pro--Rawat" vs. "anti-Rawat". Wrong in all counts, I am afraid. As for "Cagan cites" what is that you need exactly? All is needed for WP:V for a book that is widely available in the English language, is the author, title and page number. If you need specific quotations, please explain what you need and why? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sylvie, place your tongue firmly in cheek and check out m:Wrong Version. In a disputed article, no matter what version is protected or on a cool-off period for edit warring parties, there will always be people who feel the current version is the "wrong" version. If we make Andries' changes, then another editor will feel it is the "wrong" version. This just leads to more edit warring as people dispute what should be the "right" version under protection or cool-off. Please consider that. Vassyana 15:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, Vassyana. Andries didn't agree to the "truce" so you're scolding him for no reason. The admin that unlocked the article is the person who made the mistake, not Andries, so go chastise him/her. It seems like all people do around here is beat up on Andries for doing the same exact thing as Momento did, like revert warring. It's just not fair, imo. Sylviecyn 22:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The parties to the edit warring and sharp-tongued disputes have been given polite warnings, including both of those editors. The recent protection was because of Andries and Momento. Momento has since taken the time off from the article. I will not be chastising the admin, as they did the right thing. Blocks, protection and other limitations upon editors are supposed to be preventative and in most cases temporary. In this instance, the protection was preventative and temporary, aimed at stopping the recent edit warring. The protection was lifted under the impression that the editors here would be courteous and mature enough to discuss and compromise instead resorting to edit warring and disruption. It would be disappointing for the sysop's good faith to be proven wrong. Regardless, I would encourage both Momento and Andries to focus their energy on resolving their differences and discussing changes with all participating editors. Vassyana 15:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana, your "wrong article" link didn't take me to an article, but I think I read one by that title a few years ago. Somebody had too much time on their hands. However, between you and me, I'm in my 50s so I really don't require an explanation about the fact that different people have different opinions. Vassyana, my main objection to the new article has been that a concensus was never reached to replace the original with the draft, nor were any editors other than Rawat students allowed to make any substantive content edits that were and are legitimate and sourced, and you have gone along with these decisions, seemingly more concerned about people being polite with each other than having a fair, balanced, NPOV, well-sourced, and truthful article. You actually stated you didn't care what was or wasn't true in the article, so there you go. Furthermore, it's disingenuous for anyone (below) to say there wasn't a complete rewrite of the original article, because that's just not true, by any stretch of the imagination. So, what appears to have happened here (to me and other people, and not just former premies) is that only Rawat students are allowed to edit the article and everyone else faces extremely strong opposition, and as Nik said below, rhetorical arguments using baiting and sarcasm that keep conversations going on and on without resolution nor inclusion of any edits that are not desired to be in the article by those premies. Again, this is not just my observation, a lot of rational, educated people read these talk pages, and not just ex-premes. Finally, Vassyana, if there is no wikipedia guideline that provides for allowing "invisible messages" as Jossi admitted above, especially one that's not agreed upon (I didn't even know it was there!), then it's illogical to call Andries disruptive for removing it. Like I said, I never noticed it, and if I had, I would have objected to it. Sylviecyn 00:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comment is at best, specious. Anyone can edit this article, or any other article in Wikipedia, providing that they do within the content policies and process established. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I am just really tired of the "sitting on the fence" syndrome that is being observed here, and the baiting such as calling other people "rational and educated" as if current editors are not (chutzpah!). If you want to edit, do so. Otherwise, these constant complains are simply disruptive and not useful. Or is it that by no editing you reserve the right to continue complaining? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I will politely request that everyone moderate their tone. Things are starting to get a bit acrimonious and sharp. Thanks! Vassyana 16:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget that there is an open official mediation case between Momento and Andries. Time will be better spent engaging the mediator. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion that this article took "two months" to write is completely false, it's taken years. This article began as a stripped down version of the old article. Take a look here [[22]] to see how much of the old article was maintained. It forms the backbone of this article minus bad grammar, illogical chronology, superfulous material and the POV opinion. What has been added is valuable new material, logic and readability.Momento 17:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It was a complete rewrite. You took a premie votes and excluded other editors. Sylviecyn 00:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. All of the above. And "rewriting the entire thing" is unfair, I think. I didn't write the current article, it would be very different if I had. I didn't even add anything. I removed some things that I felt lessened the article's coherency and tried to meld the many differing author's and editors' voices into something more consistent. If I did bad, tell me, and tell me how to do it better. (Within the GA recommendations.) Rumiton 02:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

With everyone's consent, I would like to continue tweaking the article's phrasing, grammar and punctuation, and get the refs working properly. That done, I think we should be able to reapply for a GA review soon. Rumiton 03:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree.Momento 03:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sylvie, you seem blind to the facts and impervious to discussion. This is not a clubby chat forum, we have to expect any statement we make here to come under critical scrutiny. As a result, we may find some long-held opinions on the subject changing. This is happening for all of us. Researching the Sant business has been a personal eye-opener for me, and I would like to go into it in more depth in the article, space permitting. I am sure this is a good thing, this growth, and necessary for making a better, more balanced and informative article, under the Wiki guidelines. Let's continue to concentrate on that. Rumiton 04:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Rumiton, you said you wouldn't have rewritten it this way. What would you have done differently with the content? What would you have added? Is there anything you would have left out? (I encourage anyone who disagrees with the current version to provide their own answers. I simply request that any answers be constructive and as specific as possible.) Vassyana 16:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sylvie, the article was edited without discussion. This was recently after a protection had been lifted for edit warring. There was no excuse to begin making unilateral edits again instead of raising changes outside of copyedits to the talk page. As seen above from the discussion that took place when it was brought up, people were willing to completely remove the portion that was said to be objectionable. Such invisible comments are a part of normal wiki markup and usage. They're used for notes about the article that appear to editors, but not general readers. In general, I would encourage people to discuss things here and try to hash out a better article. Vassyana 16:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC) (P.S. Sorry for the bad link, it should be m:The Wrong Version.)

The state of the Rawat articles

Having been forced into the role of editor because the circularities of Wikipedia, I’ve read far more of the Rawat articles than I could ever have wanted to. As what I was seeking from October of last year is now largely, at least by default, apparently accepted by most editors, I’m going allow myself the luxury of commenting on wider aspects of the Rawat articles. The first thing that I think should be absolutely clear is that were it not for Andries there would be no Rawat related Wikipedia content at all worthy of the term encyclopaedia. Secondly the Momento rewrite is a semantic confabulum that is near unworkable as a basis for any kind of neutral article – losing critical academic references only exacerbates the imbalance. I’ve provided a list of challenges [[23]] to Momento’s rhetoric but I’m doubtful that even with all of those addressed that a neutral article could be cut free from the present text. --Nik Wright2 13:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Nik. I just learned a new word, confabulum. Thank you. I shall try to work it into my conversation. I agree that opposition strengthens, and that Andries has supplied plenty of it. But the opposition needs opposition too, and I do not agree that a Wikipedia article should become anybody's catharsis, which is what was happening here. It's late here now, I will read your comments carefully in the morning. Rumiton 14:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I also take exception with these comments, in particular about Andries assignation. Most of the scholarly sources and material were researched, and edited not by Andries, but myself and other editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a lot of scholarly article. I may not be nr 1, but I am certianly nr. 2 in this respect. Andries 17:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the "challenges" presented, these can be addressed quite simply by looking through the archives. These "challenges" have been already answered in one way or another already, nothing new under the sun. Nevertheless, editors will surely comment again. To avoid duplication I would suggest to address them there rather than here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)<;/small> 15:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You raise excellent points, Nik. I would add that there is no resume of Rawat's from which to quote in the Personal Section. The footnote for the that section leads to the current Maharaji.org, which could be confusing to any reader who doesn't know how to use the Way Back Machine to obtain the older 1999 website as designed by Jossi for Maharaji back then as it states. There's no resume there either, so I'd say another souce needs to be provided for all that personal info if one's available. Sylviecyn 10:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That was already discussed and explained to you before. His resume was published and it was sourced then and it is verifiable.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you explained it, but I never agreed. You unilaterally decided it was an adequate source, when in fact, there's no resume on that site, and your name is on it, so I would think it's original research. Plus, unless someone knows how to use the Way Back Machine, the link takes them to the current Maharaji dot net or org. Sylviecyn 22:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You can disagree, if you want. But that does not change the fact is that the resume was published on PR's website and it is verifiable. That is all we need to comply with WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Added link to the web.archive.org (Wayback machine) for that page, for easy verifiability. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Principles of Neutrality in Language

Vassanya. I’ve placed this here because the issues seem to me to be about principles which go to the heart of the ongoing difficulties with the Rawat articles – please shift elsewhere if you deem it appropriate. Wherever the discussion takes place I think it would be helpful if you could add your comments.

At [[24]] Jossi wrote:

We are describing what secondary published sources say about this subject. You will need to read the sources provided. In Wikipedia that is what we do: report on what secondary sources say, and that is what we have done. I would suggest you take some time and read our content policies and guidelines, in particular WP:V and WP:RS in this regard. This applies to many of what you call your challenges, namely: Formation of the DLM, conflict with family, regaining control of DLM in India by his mother, moving away for Indian trappings, and DECA, disbanding of DLM, closing the ashrams, BBS, Rotary, and others. All these are supported by multiple scholarly sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I’m puzzled by this response from Jossi. What he appears to be saying is that the wikipediadia process is one of creating a ‘story’ and then finding the evidence that fits that ‘story’. This is a legalistic process, it works fine in the context of an adversarial process where two sides contend to have their proofs accepted by an independent jury – but it is a hopeless way to create an encyclopedea on a cooperative basis. Particularly it does not allow any challenge to the bias of language, which is what I’ve attempted to do at [[25]].

Momento wrote:

NikW asks many questions. I've answered the first one as an example. NikW asks "How has Rawat taught about innner peace". Well here it all is, available through the article. I haven't the time to answer your many questions NikW, I suggest you take them to someone's talk page.

If the creator of the rhetorical and semantic base of an article is unwilling to respond to questions that concern the potential for rhetorical and semantic bias, how is it possible to co-operatively edit the article ? The only course (should I decide to contribute) would seem to be one of edit warring. I have responded to Momento at [[26]] but the exchange does provide a useful example of the inadequacies of the legalistic approach.

Momento wrote:

Stephen J. Hunt in Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction writes, "When his father died in 1966, the Guru Maharaji announced himself as the new master and started his own teaching". And later, "Maharaji transformed his initial teachings in order to appeal to a Western context".[1] Barret in The New Believers: A Survey of Sects, Cults and Alternative Religions writes that the aurthority of the Master "comes from the nature of the teaching and its benefit to the individual."[2] So Rawat is teaching about something. But what? Well, according to the article Hadden says it's "meditation techniques". He writes in Religions of the World that "The meditation techniques the Maharaji teaches today are the same he learned from his father, Hans Ji Maharaj, who, in turn, learned them from his spiritual teacher [Sarupanand], 'Knowledge', claims Maharaji, 'is a way to be able to take 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... ". Stephen J. Hunt in Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction writes that "The process of reaching the true self within can only be achieved by the individual, but with the guidance and help of a teacher.[3] So we have Rawat teaching and teaching techniques but is it about "peace", Well, Chryssides in the Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements writes "This Knowledge was self-understanding, yielding calmness, peace, and contentment, since the innermost self is identical with the divine. Knowledge is attained through initiation, which provides four techniques that allow the practitioner to go within...and emphasizing that the Knowledge is universal, non Indian, in nature."[4] And Hunt writes "The major focus of Maharaji is on stillness, peace, and contentment within the individual, and his 'Knowledge' consists of the techniques to obtain them.[5]. So there we have it NikW, in black and white, Rawat is teaching about inner peace. I suppose I could add "by meeting groups of people around the world" but surely I don't have to be that obviousMomento 14:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nik Wright2 wrote:

The above secondary sources may address the questions “What does Prem Rawat teach ? and What has Prem Rawat taught ? However they do not address the question that follows from the article text:

Prem Rawat, also known as Maharaji (formerly Guru Maharaj Ji) has been a speaker and teacher on the subject of "inner peace" since the age of eight, as well as offering instruction of four meditation techniques he calls Knowledge.[3][4]

The question being - How has he taught on the subject of “inner peace” ? The quoted references say nothing about the text as it is constructed. If the text read “Prem Rawat has been a teacher of techniques to obtain inner peace” then the quoted references would be relevant – and open to challenge, replacement and/or augmentation by alternatives or additions.

I think Momento’s position points to a larger problem which relates to the assumed status of Sociology References and Sociologists. A good exmple of which is Momento’s recent approach to a Sephen Kent quote:

I don't think ^ Stephen A. Kent From Slogans To Mantras. "I found his poorly delivered message to be banal." deserves to be in this article, He is talking about his experience from attending one night and hearing Rawat talk. It's not very scholarly.Momento 17:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sociology has developed a range of scholarly approaches, qualitative methodology and reflective processes allow that personal perspectives may well be entirely ‘scholarly’. If Sociologists are to be sources of reference for an article, it can not be neutral to select between those who are quoted and those who are not on the basis that one scholarly approach supports the ‘story’ and another does not. One of the more peculiar aspects in this case is Geaves who was uniquely placed to write a reflective paper yet has never done so, but rather has used poorly applicable Quantative Methodologies in his writings on Rawat.

It is all very well introducing academic references, but if the scope and context of the reference is not understood by editors then there will be ongoing dispute. It is why (in my opinion) Andries has been so important to the Rawat articles – he has been the only consistent advocate of a balanced approach toward the Sociological material. I’m not arguing Andries’ case, but rather a case for a logical and consistent approach to academic writing.

Again Vassanya I think your observations would be helpful.

--Nik Wright2 11:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I will let Vassyana respond to your questions as it is more likely that you will accept his opinion rather than mine. In the future, note that if you want a a specific editor to respond to questions, it is more appropriate to ask these questions at that editor's talk page rather than in an article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe your concerns, as raised on the draft talk, reflect a concern for truthful reporting, which I can appreciate. However, regardless of what you know and regardless of what gaps in information there may be, we must rely on verifiable reliable sources. We cannot rely on our own direct knowledge or opinion. If the majority of sources put forth facts/claims, that must be the main focus of the article. If there is a reasonable minority of sources that put forth claims, they can be included in proportion and used as a contrast to the "mainstream" of the sources. If there is a single source claim, it should be put under great scrutiny. If it is contradictory to the majority of sources, or posits an unusual claim, it must be supported by additional sources or excluded. (Obviously scale these considerations to the amount of references available on the subject.) Quotes should be avoided as they tend to multiply and turn articles into quote farms. I understand this can be restricting and frustrating. For example, I am incredibly familiar with Mantak Chia, however my own observations and criticisms cannot be used as a basis for a biographical article. I must continue to seek proper references if I wish to expand that article. I hope that helps clarify my own opinion. If you have further questions, feel free to ask. Vassyana 19:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana. My concern was not about the difference between 'what I know' and 'what the sources say' - I fully understand that everything in a wikipedia article has to be drawn from a reputable source. Rather I'm concerned about how sources are used. As far as I'm concerned the only logical (and indeed honest) way is to take the evidence (as given in the sources) and compile an article as a reasoned construct of that evidence. My understanding of what others are saying is that the Wikipedia process is actually simply jemmying the references in to fit the article as it is written.

I've posted a series of suggested amemdments based on achieving semantic and rhetorical neutrality on the bio proposal -[[27]] I have included some limited factual amendments/additions with accompanying references but the largest problem I see is that the existing text frequently does not match the evidence presented by the given reference. I understand the wish not to quote the source verbatim, but the meaning of text and reference must surely concur ?

I'll leave the amendments for comment - but what is the status of the bio proposal - am I free to amend that ? am I free to amend the current article ? The process here is less than clear. Some edits are being made to the main article but not to the bio proposal - which should we be discussing ?

--Nik Wright2 16:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fee

The text reads. "A fee is requested to cover postage and packing, but the techniques are taught without charge." ??? Are we saying that sending a package in the post cost money? Also, this is not the case in many countries and even in the US, people can collect the Keys DVDs from local libraries at no charge. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you intend to say here Jossi. I cut out the word "small" as NikW drew attention to its redundancy (see my reply on the Bio prop discussion page.) Do you see another problem? Rumiton 14:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I would eliminate the "A fee is requested to cover postage and packing", because it is non-encyclopedic. Sending stuff in the post cost money everywhere. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have never liked this sentence myself because the tone sounds promotional (as identified by the GA review.) On the other hand, if you can't pick them up yourself, it does cost something to get the vids. I don't think we should just say "The Keys are distributed without charge" or there could be complaints. Maybe we can find a better, more encyclopedic description. Rumiton 15:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I would just keep it really simple:

In 2005, Rawat introduced a process of self-paced preparation for receiving Knowledge known as "The Keys." The process It consists of video materials presented as five keys which prepare the student for learning the techniques. The sixth Key is the session where the techniques are taught by Rawat via a multimedia presentation.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Process" is repeated, so is "Key" (three times.) It reads a bit clumsy to me. Off to bed. See you tomorrow. Rumiton 15:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

See corrected version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Good editing Rumiton. I like "Coming of Age". This contradiction needs to be resolved - was DLM established in 71 or 72? In any case I'd like to see lede - "He returned to the West in 1972 with his mother and elder brother, and formed the Divine Light Mission to assist in spreading his message" replaced with "He returned to the West in 1972 with his mother and elder brother, and the Divine Light Mission was established to assist in spreading his message". AND "Rawat established the U.S. Divine Light Mission (DLM), based in Denver, Colorado in September 1971" replaced with "The U.S. Divine Light Mission (DLM), was established in Denver, Colorado in September 1971" Thanks.Momento 22:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Momento. I see your point about DLM establishment. I'll check with the PR team here to find the correct date, unless Jossi can help us? Does anyone have a problem with the other changes? They look fine to me. Rumiton 03:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

See Divine_Light_Mission. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That article has been gibberished Jossi. Have a look, it says the DLM was founded in 1960, came to the west with PR in the 70s, and was "formed" in 1971. That huge mess is the next thing we need to clean up. Rumiton 04:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know the full proprietary title of DECA? Was it DECA INC or DECA CORP or something else? Rumiton 05:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Got my answer thanks. It was the Design Engineering Corporation of America. Rumiton 12:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Does Cagan say that Rawat actually "set up" DECA? Prem Rawat's name wasn't on any of the documents incorporating any of the corporate entities related to DECA, like IMMCO, Quantum Leasing, and later AMP (Aircraft Modular Products), DECA Construction Company, etc. Rawat's association with those corporations was well-hidden from the public (anyone but premies). Quantum Leasing was the corporate entity that purchased the jet and hired DECA to do the design, engineering and actual reconfiguration of it, including the gold-plated toilet for Maharaji that was on the jet. I ask because the corporations were so intensely secret, that premies not involved directly in the project didn't even know about it's existence until much later on in the progress of the B707 reconfiguration, and anyone working within the premises, whether at the DECA or the Miami Int'l Airport hangar were instructed to never even say the name "Maharaji, Guru Maharaj Ji, or Prem Rawat." Especially when dealing with FAA officials and outside, non-premie vendors at the hangar or on DECA premises, no one was allowed to utter his name. It was part of my job to ensure that anyone who ever slipped and referred to Rawat as anything but "The Client" was spoken to (by me) and set straight. Therefore, the entire paragraph is very misleading. It may have been his agya to procure the jet and set up those corporations, but it wasn't his investment venture. He got it all for free, courtesy of premies all over the world. Sylviecyn 15:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate if you refrain from using these pages for anything but article-related issues. Indeed that paragraph is not correct. The source (Cagan) does not mention DECA at all. The paragraph needs to reflect what the source say, no more and no less:

Page 222 In the spring of 1979, an old Boeing 707 was acquired that had a long enough range to accommodate his extensive travels and enough space for his family and the people helping with his tours. The aircraft underwent extensive renovations in Miami before becoming operational in 1980.

Page 228 In June of 1980, the refurbishing of the Boeing 707 was completed. To be able to fly it as the captain, he acquired various aviation licenses, including his private pilot license, a commercial pilot license, and an air transport pilot license. During 1981, his efforts were rewarded as full access to the 707, a capable aircraft, enabled him to travel to forty different cities and speak on 120 separate occasions. He crisscrossed North America four times that year, touring South America, Europe, India, Nepal, Australia, New Zealand, and Malaysia.

Page 255: Maharaji now circumnavigated the globe often more than once a year. The 707 had served him well for a few years, but it had to be sold in 1984 because it did not meet the new noise regulations of the American Federal Aviation Administration.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The earlist mention of DECA I can find is Andries edit on Aug 9, 2005 - "For a time around 1980 Prem Rawat moved his centre of operations to Miami where activities included a project known as DECA which was concerned with the customization of a Boeing 707 for Prem Rawat's personal use. The project failed to produce an aircraft suitable for sustained use, and also failed in its commercial ambition and the business was eventually sold". If we can't find a scholarly source it should go.Momento 20:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

`1971 is the year DLM was established in the US. So the lede should read something like - "In 1971 Rawat traveled out of India to speak in London and Los Angeles, and was the subject of substantial media attention. He toured North America and established Divine Light Mission in Denver, Colorado in September before returning to India for the celebration of his father's birthday. He returned to the US in February 1972 with his mother, eldest brother and an entourage of mahatmas and other Indian supporters."Momento 07:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Does everyone else agree? Rumiton 08:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Though on second reading, you first have "...the DLM was established" then it changes to "...he established the DLM." The first variant raises the question to me... if he didn't "establish" it, who did? Rumiton 09:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As others have pointed out he was legally under age, so he couldn't have legally brought DLM US in existence, he would have asked someone to do it. "Established" seems broad enough. And since the sentence begins and ends with what "he" did, so it's hard not to continue in that vein in the middle.Momento 09:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I copied this down to here... Rumiton, you said you wouldn't have rewritten it this way. What would you have done differently with the content? What would you have added? Is there anything you would have left out? (I encourage anyone who disagrees with the current version to provide their own answers. I simply request that any answers be constructive and as specific as possible.) Vassyana 16:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I would gush, Vassyana. I would definitely gush. I have had a magnificent 35 years with Maharaji. The inner experience has been a fascinating challenge and a well of love every step of the way, with constantly new feelings and challenges. Every time I come out into something new and maybe uncomfortable, he is there validating and guiding with his trademark casualness and kindness. The twists and turns that have taken place have been a loosening up, and necessary, and no doubt there will be more. I have no complaints at all, apart from a couple of small ones about myself, and I recommend Maharaji to anyone who is looking for validity in their life. Obviously, I would love it if the article could help them in that direction a bit more than it does.

Specifics? Where do I start? Rumiton 08:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Divine Light Mission was incorporated in Colorado in Sept. 1971 by Bob Mishler and other premies. Prem Rawat was only 13 at in 1971. The name change to Elan Vital occurred in 1983 according to the "Entity Name Change" document filed in Colorado Sec'y of State office. DLM was incorporated in Colorado, so it will be forever a Colorado corporation, and considered a "foreign corporation" in any other U.S. states, like Florida and California. So for purposes of citing dates, the Colorado filing dates probably should be used, not Florida or California. Bob Misler established DLM as its president at the time of incorporation, along with other premies. Here's the link to all the DLM and EV docs on the Colorado Secretary of State Business Center. Rawat didn't establish anything, Mishler did. Sylviecyn 10:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that Sylvia. So Bob Mishler (and others) incorporated the US DLM in Sept 71, with Bob as the first president. Rumiton 12:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

How about "The US Divine Light Mission was established on his behalf...?" Rumiton 12:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Rumniton. We cannot say that as we would be violation WP:NOR. We need to stick to the sources we have and we have plenty for that aspect. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. What do they say about the connection between PR and DLM? Rumiton 14:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No one seems to directly connect Rawat with setting up DLM. Rather they say "it was established". Geaves says " followers of Prem Rawat’s teachings in the UK established Divine Light Mission in 1971". I think we'll have to say in the lede - "In 1971 Rawat traveled out of India to speak in London and Los Angeles, and was the subject of substantial media attention. He toured North America and Divine Light Mission was establshed in Denver, Colorado in September before Rawat returned to India for the celebration of his father's birthday. He returned to the US in February 1972 with his mother, eldest brother and an entourage of mahatmas and other Indian supporters".Momento 21:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And also how about: In 2005, Rawat further developed his teaching style by introducing a program of self-paced preparation for Knowledge. "The Keys" consist of five packs of videos which prepare the student for learning and practising the techniques. Key Six is the "Knowledge Session," a multimedia presentation available in fifty languages. Rumiton 13:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you add that the Knowledge Session is when people are taught the techniques. I don't know what sources there are for it.Momento 21:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The Keys website: https://thekeys.maharaji.net/home/?_a=about ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That seems to cover it. If there are no other objections, I will stick it in. Rumiton 06:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Having expanded the lede to incorporate an accurate statement on DLM, I'm wondering if the second paragraph isn't too long. Maybe we leave out the DLM bit, after all DLM was establsihed in many other places other than the US and more info be found later in the article. We can just keep "In June, 1971 Rawat traveled out of India to speak in London and Los Angeles, and was the subject of substantial media attention before he returned to India for the celebration of his father's birthday. He returned to the US in February 1972 with his mother, eldest brother and an entourage of mahatmas and other Indian supporters. Tens of thousands of followers were attracted, largely from the hippie culture, and dozens of Indian style ashrams were established. Rawat was criticised by Christian religious scholars on the basis of his youth, his behaviour and his teachings.Momento 22:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Momento, your eagle eye has done it again! Yes, IMO there is no need for the repetition. Especially as it has been shown that Rawat did not personally start the DLM. Rumiton 07:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried to implement the above, but then some other things stood out to me as superfluous in the Lead Section. So out they went too. Comments? Rumiton 08:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)