Jump to content

Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 42

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45

NEUTRAL LEDE WITH REVISED CHRONOLOGY

After all the to and fro discussion by the various editors wishing to improve this topic, I have taken the time to revise the lede in total including a more accurate chronology as follows:

"Prem Pal Singh Rawat (Hindi: प्रेम पाल सिंह रावत) (born December 10, 1957), also known as Maharaji and formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji and Balyogeshwar, teaches a meditation practice that he calls Knowledge.[1] At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru to millions of Indian followers. He gained international prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West where the Divine Light Mission was considered one of the fastest growing new religious movements.[2][3][4] When Rawat turned 16 he began to take a more active role in guiding DLM that had previously been managed by others. His marriage to a Westerner in 1975 divided his family and the movement with Rawat retaining control of DLM outside of India.[5][6][7] He based himself in the US becoming a United States citizen in 1977 and continued to travel extensively to spread his message.[8][9] In the early 1980s he abandoned the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more universally acceptable and disbanded the DLM which was succeeded by Elan Vital in 1983. In 2001 he established the Prem Rawat Foundation as a vehicle for humanitarian work and to spread his message which is now available in over eighty countries.[10][6]
The core of Rawat's teaching is that the human need for fulfillment can be satisfied by turning inward to discover a constant source of joy. He emphasizes a direct experience of transcendence, rather than a body of dogma.[6][11][12] Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses[5][13] and for leading an opulent lifestyle.[6][14]"

I think the above satisfies Wiki's requirment for a NPOV Terry Macro (talk)

The current lead is the product of extensive editing by numerous editors. Rather than an outright replacement, I recommend you make suggestions for individual edits to the existing lead.   Will Beback  talk  00:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I think this lead is much worse than what we are already working towards, and completely ignores our current discussion about the lead already in progress, as well as adding details that are just about completely irrelevant to his "importance" in general. I would strongly oppose rebuilding the lead using TerryMacro's draft as a starting point. -- Maelefique (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Maelefique, you are right, I have removed the unnotable material - looks good to me, thank you for your advice. Terry Macro (talk) 04:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it looked good to you before too, I am still opposed since you only took half my advice, you continue to ignore our continuing discussion above. This version is not a good starting point. -- Maelefique (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
the problem with the above discussion is that it is so piecemeal, it is hard to get a handle on what exactly is going to be the full end result. Such a piecemeal approach could end up looking like a dog's breakfast. The above discussion was headed "Neutral Lede" which is what I have produced. Terry Macro (talk) 06:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The discusion above is focused on altering a single sentence. It's not piecemeal at all.   Will Beback  talk  06:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Terry Macro's lede is a major improvement in style. It presents all of the information contained in the current lede without the abrupt, somewhat disjointed sentences that are the result of innumerable edits. Perhaps most importantly, it better reflects the contents of the article. I will post more about this later when I get more time. --Zanthorp (talk) 07:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Terry Macro hasn't offered any reasons or explanations for the changes. One I notice is that the mention of the TPRF is much longer. I'm not aware of any formal relationship between the subject and the TPRF, which is a relatively obscure organization compared to the DLM or even EV. I don't think we should make the TPRF coverage any longer than it is already.   Will Beback  talk  09:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- :: You have to see the humour in the situation - what is the formal relationship between DLM, EV and PR in most or all instances? I doubt that PR was formally related in the legal sense to any of these organisations. With TPRF (The Prem Rawat Foundation)the organisation is at least directly named after the subject. The reference to TPRF is one sentence, and not a long sentence at that. I will have to do some research to see if your claim that TPRF is a relatively obscure organisation is correct. Anecdotally, from my exposure to members of the general public, both DLM and EV are extremely obsure organisations anyway and very few people have heard of either. If they were cults with people dancing naked around a fire on the full moon I am sure they would have become well known very quickly - however they probably would have increased their membership numbers significantly. Terry Macro (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Revised Chronology - if (and it is necessary) the current chronology is to be revised, let's at least get it accurate. The Divine light Mission was not 'disbanded' (see discssion at Talk:Divine Light Mission) in the 1980s. A number of tertiary sources say it was disbanded yet this is at complete odds with unimpeachable primary sources - not least the England & Wales Charity Commission, which shows that the UK DLM was not closed until 1995 Charity Commission for England and Wales. Official Register [1]. IRS and Australian Gov. docs show that the DLMs in those countries were simply renamed Elan Vital. Verification not Truth may be the standard for Wikipedia, but we don't have to include patently false information just because some lazy Socioligists keep repeating a falsity.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • A problem with primary sources is that they often don't give the whole picture. We have no way of telling from that site whether the DLM was active in any way during the 1980s and 1990s, beyond perhaps paying some maintenance fee to keep the name. At least one secondary source tells us that Mata Ji retained control over the DLM in the UK, but that Maharaj Ji's supporters controlled the DUO, which held the properties, IIRC. I suggest we deal with this in the DLM article first, and then bring over our best research to this article.   Will Beback  talk  01:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Status of The Charity Register. – The legal Status of a Charity in the UK (under both Scottish and English legal systems) is more formal than that in the US. A charity may be a corporation, though not necessarily so, however to operate with Charitable purpose an entity must by Law be registered as a Charity. Registration as a Charity requires that the entity continue to operate within its defined terms, Trustees must be in place and annual returns must be made. There is no option to ‘pay a maintenance fee’ to keep the name as there might be with a business registration (not that would apply anyway under UK business Law as related to Company Registration). So inclusion on the Register of Charities is unequivocally a statement of current activity, which is only terminated by dissolution, and as recorded on the Register. There can be no doubt the UK Divine Light Mission operated as a legal entity until 1995. Price, who you quote, is patently wrong in a number of instances. Mataji could never have been a trustee of a UK Charity as she did not have UK citizenship, DUO was never created as a UK charity, and all the reports about the Palace of Peace (a disused cinema) which was the only significant property the UK movement ever owned, all talk of it being owned by DLM. Price is worth quoting in terms of her own expertise, but that didn’t include an understanding of Charity Law !--Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
      • - :Nik, so how would you propose it should read to take into account staggered close and renaming of some of the DLMs? I would not have thought it necessary to go into too much detail about DLM on the lede of the PR page as WB suggests, though whatever summarisation is stated about DLM etc should be correct as you have indicated. Terry Macro (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The failings in these articles come from inadequately addressing the sources, and we have numerous competing sources dealing with the DLM to evaluate to editors satisfaction, so I don’t think rewriting the lede of the PR article is the way forward in sorting out the DLM mess, as Will says the DLM article is the place to start. But then this was my reasoning for cutting the current PR lede down to just the first paragraph as it stands. Perhaps other editors could live with the second paragraph being cut to all but the first sentence as it stands (with the cult/NRM issue resoved), plus the two final sentences of the lede. The lede could then be augmented once the DLM article and relevant section(s) of the PR article has been resolved.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Nik, I fully agree with you about this point. "Verification not Truth may be the standard for Wikipedia, but we don't have to include patently false information just because some lazy Socioligists keep repeating a falsity." Also thanks for your research into the charity register and related issues. About the lede, generally I think it would be better to follow guidelines. The lede should give an overview of the article. Unfortunately, Will's edit to the lede has compounded an existing undue weight problem, and the cult/NRM issue is no closer to resolution than it was a week ago. --Zanthorp (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've started a thread to discuss the DLM in UK at Talk:Divine Light Mission#End of DLM in UK.   Will Beback  talk  06:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of edit

I've still got this article on my watchlist, and this popped up. Now, I compared the difference in my sandbox, and I can't see one. Is this just asn issue of where the content is in the article, or is there something I'm missing? Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 23:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the disagreement is over where that content should go. IMO, for structural balance it should go in either the 1970s section or the media section. As I understand it, the lede is supposed to reflect the most important content in the article. This stuff does not even appear in the article, so why clutter up the lede with it? I have previously asked if anyone can show me any other BLP that lists in the lede the terms used to describe a defunct organization that the subject did not create. Nobody seems to be listening. its like talking to a frigging brick wall here. --Zanthorp (talk) 04:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, if it's being put into the lead section of the article, it probably doesn't belong there, as lead sections serve to give the reader an overview of the article, and not to serve as an "ad space", a space where contributors to the article can post things there that they want readers to see first. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 04:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore this topic is about PR, not DLM - a defunct organisation at that. Terry Macro (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Divine Light Mission in the U.S. is not defunct. The name was changed, but it's the same corporation that incorporated in the early 70s. DLM filed a name-change in 1983 (to Elan Vital) with the Secretary of State of Colorado in 1983. Btw, the Secretary of State departments in all of the U.S. states are where all corporations, whether for-profit or non-profit, file/register their legal incorporations, as well as any changes in their status, including name changes. Therefore, based on Colorado state records, Divine Light Mission and Elan Vital U.S. are one and the same non-profit corporation. Therefore, Elan Vital, formerly called DLM, is still an active corporation in the U.S. with it's "home" state being Colorado to this day. It's also incorporated in Florida and California as "foreign corporations," thusly designated because DLM's original incorporation was in Colorado. Because the U.S. is primarily where Prem Rawat gained his fame when he first came to western countries, mentioning DLM is proper for purposes of this discussion, because it was during the DLM hay day that Rawat gained his notability. Hope this helps to explain. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, even if DLM were defunct, it still would be appropriate to have it in the lede becaase this is the biography of Prem Rawat's life, and that includes all the years, not just the years after the DLM name changes. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The reason for including reference to the organisation(s) in the lede is because this is essential to establishing the subject's notability - no organisation = no notability. As to the claim of being defunct, not only is that irrelevant to the history, (the organisation was functioning at the time relevant to the article subject becoming notable and again no organisation = no notability would apply)but there is ample evidence that organisations once named as DLM are the same oranisations now functioning under the name Elan Vital. Given Terry Macro has a potential COI in this, his claim of defunct status seems somewhat questionable. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2009 (UT

In my understanding a COI can only exist, when an editor ist presently on the article subject's payroll, or presently carries functions in their organisations. Former involvement may condition a POV, which is not unusual or an obstacle for editing here, I agree with Terry. No? Are you wishing to discuss your involvement on the anti-Rawat talkpages? Everybody here has a POV. Most unconscious and dangerous to quality are those who believe they don't.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Your understanding is wrong. See the points made by Maelefique on Terrymacro's talkpage. The more substantive point here, is that Terrymacro claims on his talkpage that he did not know about the DLM history till he read the referenced material I provided here and on the DLM page, then he claims here that despite that referenced material, DLM is defunct. He can't have it both ways. Were DLM organisations renamed Elan Vital, or were they disbanded ? --Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
With regard to that discussion on Terrymacro's talk page, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Outing? Thanks, JN466 16:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Let's try to keep discussions of individual editors off this page.   Will Beback  talk  18:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Elan Vital / DLM: I would like to determine if EV is a corporation in any real sense of the word, and whether or not the current organization is comparable to the 1970s DLM in any real sense. In the 1970s the DLM occupied 4 floors of a building in Denver and apparently had branch offices in other locations. Now, there is no phone listing for EV in Denver or any of about 20 other major US cities I checked apart from an office at Agoura Hills, CA. --Zanthorp (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Many organizations go through major changes, including their size and HQ location. Legally, the DLM and EV are the same organization, at least in the US and Australia.   Will Beback  talk  07:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Beback, I would like to point out that the only thing that didn't change was Mr. Rawat as the leader of both organizations. I was there during the changeover, since I received Knowledge in an ashram in 1982 and they were closed shortly afterwards. Not only did M disband the ashrams and indicate that DLM was no longer in business, he told everyone to throw away all of their DLM material. Now this material was very precious to many people but they threw away years worth of Divine Times magazines and other assorted magazines and newspapers that DLM had published over the years simply because M asked them to do so. Would he have done so if EV was just a "name change" from DLM? I don't think so. Even Ms. SilvieCynthia can vouch for that. Not only were the ashrams closed and the magazines thrown away, but Mr. Rawat made it clear in no uncertain terms that he was making EV free of almost all of the Hindu concepts, terminology and claptrap that accompanied his Father's original DLM as it came to the West. He wanted this new organization to break free from DLM and in my opinion, DLM and EV are completely separate entities. DLM represented his Father's work and his initial foray out into the world. EV was his determined effort to close that chapter down and start a new dispensation of his work and message. I don't know the legalities involved but in my mind and in the minds of most people involved, DLM and EV are not the same animal except for M.Gadadhara (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Interesting input Gadadhara, but I think that you would be hard pressed to find a valid source we could use for the this article that refutes the EV/DLM legal documents that state it is only a name change. Whether it felt that way or not. Unfortunately, sometimes here at Wikipedia we are bound by a few concepts that, while usually very prudent, can take a view of events that not everyone agrees with, you may want to look over WP:COS, WP:NOR, WP:SOURCE, and probably WP:PSTS for a clearer understanding of the issues you raise here. -- Maelefique (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, Sir or Madam Maelefique, I will press hard to find a valid source if that is deemed necessary. I was simply talking about my own experience. Shortly before I received Knowledge in May of 1982, the guy who introduced me to M gave me all of his old DLM mags. They were precious to him and I was puzzled why he would do so but found out about M asking everyone to destroy them. I am simply saying that DLM and EV are different organizations IMHO. You sound like an expert on this subject. Have you received the gift of Knowledge from M? If so and you were around back in those days, you must know that the transition from DLM to EV was not simply a name change. So, what's your interest here? Have you received the 4 techniques of Knowledge? Do you have an agenda here or are you simply a "fair and impartial" editor who is concerned about this topic even though you don't have the Knowledge? Gadadhara (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia guidelines are quite clear, it is definitely deemed necessary to find a valid source for your assertions, again I would urge you to read the links I have listed for you, they are basic to all Wikipedia articles, and particularly applicable to this group of articles. While I am interested to hear about your own experience with DLM/EV, without valid sources, none of this information can be used, or even considered towards the text of the article. I can appreciate that your opinion is that the two organizations are different, but given what I just said, I'm sure you can see why that's not too relevant to the project here. I am not an expert on the subject and I have not recieved Knowledge, I am just a historian who has a serious problem with revisionist history, but with no ties to Prem Rawat whatsoever."Fair and impartial" around here seems to vary in opinion from editor to editor, so I would suggest the simplest thing to do would be read the talk pages, and decide for yourself who has an agenda, and who is "fair and impartial".-- Maelefique (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I will take you at your word that you are not an expert on the subject and have not received Knowledge and are simply an historian who has a serious problem with revisionist history but with no ties to Prem Rawat. You have responded to 2 of my posts so far (that I posted and addressed to other people, not you) and I see you posting all over the place on this article about Prem Rawat. I am trying to grasp why it is so important to you that you would spend all this time responding to me and others here making sure that EV is called a "cult" in the lede and that EV and DLM are linked together as the same organization. You do this simply because you don't like "revisionist" history? My goodness, aren't there many other more worthwhile topics that you could be involved with where you do know something and can prevent revisionist history where it might make a difference? After all, this is simply a minor teacher of meditation who is offering people a way to go within and experience the life force. If someone could benefit from learning about how to experience a little peace in their lives but decide not to investigate it because you (who know nothing about the topic) succeeded in getting it labeled as a "cult" because you (who don't know about the topic) decided that it was "revisionist" to not label it as a "cult", would that make you happy? Am I missing something here, Sir? This is not an important topic to you? Seems to me that you are spending an inordinate amount of time on a topic that you know nothing about. How do you decide what is revisionist or not? Gadadhara (talk) 09:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
This page is solely for the discussion about the article it is associated with, it's not the place to have a conversation about me (unless it's directly relevant to the article, such as Terry's "possible" COI). If you would like to continue this further feel free to leave a note on my talk page. I do not want to distract from the work being done here, I thought I was helping a new editor find his way around, but it looks like that's not what you are after now. If you took my replies as anything other than attempts at being helpful to a new editor I'll just add that that was not my intent. -- Maelefique (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Nik, do you realize what you have done? You have posted a link here to direct readers Terry M's talk page where you and Will Beback have harassed him over his involvement 25 to 30 years ago with the DLM, and a directorship (unpaid ?) which ended 9 years ago. And on that page you have posted a link to an anti-Rawat smear campaign web page, "Rawatsucks", which lists what you claim is Terry M's real name and other information. This appears under "...a court writ information on the Company file is a powerful indicator of increased risk" and "Principal Activity: fuck all." According to the bio that Will linked to, Terry M's involvement with anything related to the Elan Vital ended 9 years ago. You have merely demonstrated that there is no reason for him to declare a COI because there isn't one. In the process you have revealed personal information about him, harassed him and used an anti-Rawat web site to smear his reputation. Until today I had some respect for you. Right now I have none! Your activities here are unacceptable. This is not what Wikipedia is about. --Zanthorp (talk) 03:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's try to keep discussions of individual editors off this page. If you wish to pursue this matter it's a topic at WP:COIN#User:Terrymacro.   Will Beback  talk  04:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest that for the time being, discussion on this page ceases, and we wait until mediation commences? That might be for the best. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 11:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Proposal

I think that the time has come to move to more formal mediation around this, moderated by uninvolved third party(s) as it is obvious that there is still dispute. I believe that a request along this lines has been made in arbitration enforcement. I would be willing to support a roll back of the changes to the version of two weeks ago, subject to agreement to mediation for resolution, and agreement that the initial focus will be on the changes made to the lede. What I wouldn't want to see is all the recent work being wasted by having to wait for several months for a full scale review/re-write or the entire article before solving the current issue. --Savlonn (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've created a new section for this proposal, if that is not acceptable please revert. I agree with Savalonn's reasoning, at present this is going nowhere and there needs to be process which forces discussion to be fixed to referenced material.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Mediation appears necessary.   Will Beback  talk  19:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Mediation is necessary. Sylviecyn (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I had to think about this overnight before I really decided I'd put my hand up, and offer to help out. Now, I realise that my performance as a mediator last year left a lot to be desired, and the incident that happened just after the mediation ended hasn't helped either. That said, I've learnt a lot from my past mistakes. I've developed a more effective method of mediation that I think, this time around, would work well, and no-one really knows this subject matter better, in terms of getting up to speed with the situation, and how to resolve it, than I do, so I'd like to offer to mediate here. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 05:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the next step is to get a mediation request filed, to first establish buy-in from participants, then agreement on the moderator(s) would be part of that process. I would prefer for someone else to file the request, as I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia bureaucracy :-). Jayen and Will immediately come to mind as Wikipedia experts who could file a mediation request in their sleep.--Savlonn (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, conventionally, the parties normally can't pick and choose between mediators, generally because there's such an extreme shortage of active, willing mediators, so it's somewhat a "get what you can" thing. However, this isn't a normal dispute, and it will probably be a long one, so I would advise that there should be some discussion on who the mediator should be. If that's me, then great, I'll help you all out. If not, thats alright too, and I'd be happy to assist someone else. That said, I'm not too sure how many would be willing to mediate this case, given the nature of the dispute, but I'm sure I could find someone. As for who would file it, I'm sure someone will. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 12:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-06/Prem Rawat   Will Beback  talk  00:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I support a request for mediation however I also propose that this topic be protected in its current form until the mediation process is complete. Terry Macro (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
That probably won't be required, ground rules can cover that. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 02:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Open

  • Unsure if everyone is aware yet, but the mediation case has been opened. The case page can be found here. I've asked for an agreement to ground rules. Once everyone has agreed to the ground rules, we can proceed from there. A concise list of issues to be addressed is required. Best, Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 05:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there is a list of issues at present. There is a long list of issues left over from the previous mediation but most of those were added by now-banned editors so they are essentially moot. While most mediations are intended to resolve specific issues and then end, perhaps a better way of handling this mediation would be to put in place procedures to handle individual disputes as they arise.   Will Beback  talk  06:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps. I considered this rather carefully and I think the best course of action would be to compile a list of current issues that need addressing, and address them. Once that's done, and the MedCab case is closed, I can implement long term meausres, such as long term mediation. Oh, and I'm still waiting for an agreememnt to the ground rules. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 06:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Steve, did you mean you want list elements posted here ? In case its what you intended these are the three aspects that seem to me to be holding up progress on this page:
  • 1. The subject’s notability deriving from his relationship to an organisation.
  • 2. The functional (as opposed to notional) history of the organisations that support(ed) Hans Rawat, Satya Pal Rawat and Prem Pal Rawat.
  • 3. The inherent requirement to acknowledge the ‘cult’ appellation as it relates to both the Divine Light Mission/Elan Vital and Prem Rawat. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, that might help somewhat, but I was looking for something that somewhat resembled this. If that makes sense. Obviously, they would need to be elaborated on. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 07:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we should put this on hold until there is a clear list of disputes in need of mediation.   Will Beback  talk  21:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
. We don't need to address everything at once, but a list of some issues to start with would help. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 06:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
If there's no list of things that are currently disputed then a model of mediation focused on such a list can't succeed. I mean, I can sit and think of things that can be improved, and which might or might not generate controversy, but there don't seem to be any raging disputes at the moment. So either we can think of about having a mediation scheme in place for when dispute (inevitably) arise, or just wait until that time comes. I don't see any benefit to locking down every related article, beyond the strict rules of the ArbCom, just so we can spend two months and 50,000 words debating the nature of Rawat's relationship to his movement or some other abstract concept. Maybe someone else can think of a concrete issue to discuss.   Will Beback  talk  07:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, a long term mediation solution would be something that I'd discuss amongst DR experts. I'd imagine it would involve long term monitoring of the situation, and informal mediation (such as on talk pages) discussing the issues and resolving them. Other methods may also be used, as well as possibly a new form of dispute resolution (Wikipedia:Long term mediation perhaps) might be created. I've still got to think it over. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 07:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Will has made an important point, and to be clear I was specifically 'abstract' in identifying 'three areas' because although these are undoubtedly 'areas of dispute', there has been a distinct lack of reference based argument from some editors, which has left the whole dispute as an abstraction. A non abstract starting point may be the problem arising from having definitive primary sources (see refs this page and Notes on the DLM talk page = Colorado Secretary of State and Charity Commission) which contradict all (to use Jayen's phrase) all the established literature. Jayen insists the literature is unimpeachable, whilst I consider it untenable insofar as none of the authors address definitve historic records regarding the creation (or not) and renaming (or not) of legal entities. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I concur that we really need a focus on rigor around a) a clear reference back to reliable sources for points that are being debated and b) agreement on reliable sources to use. On the first point, it would be good for the mediator to actively steer the debates towards providing tangible references when we we start spinning our wheels again on what should and shouldn't be included. On the second point, I suggest that we reference the good work that was done during last year's mediation, rather than start from scratch; for example, regarding the suitability of Andrea Cagan as a quotable source. Perhaps we could pull out a summary table of agreed reliable sources from last year's mediation and re-validate consensus as a starting point? --Savlonn (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
In terms of specific areas of dispute to be actively mediated, I nominate the current point of contention around the terminology used in the lede to describe the DLM and Prem Rawat; specifically the use of the term 'cult'.
At this point I suggest this discussion should be moved to the mediation page - Steve, what do you think? --Savlonn (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with that, but first, all the parties will need to agree to the ground rules, and then I'll ask for opening statements. We will proceed with the mediation after that. This is a complex dispute, and as I have learned from the past, it's best not to rush into this. There is no deadline here, and I think it best if we approach this dispute, the second time around, in a methodical way. Best, Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 11:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Nik wrote, Jayen insists the literature is unimpeachable, whilst I consider it untenable insofar as none of the authors address definitive historic records regarding the creation (or not) and renaming (or not) of legal entities. If none of the authors address it, then neither should we, as per WP:DUE, which is a key part of WP:NPOV, which is policy. Due weight of facts and opinions in Wikipedia is established by secondary sources, not by Wikipedians. Recall also that Nik is a Wikipedian with an acknowledged history of bitter personal feuding with Rawat's organisation outside Wikipedia, a conflict that has gone on for many years.
Arbcom gave us clear ground rules here:
Nik's reasoning is out of step with that. Our job is to mirror the literature. I propose whatever page we have our mediated discussions on, we should nail a board listing the arbcom principles above the door. --JN466 17:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Jayen, I think you need to take a few deep breaths, your over excitement is taking you well off track. I have never feuded, bitter or otherwise, with any organisation anywhere. The link you give concerns discussion about the use of a document that was located on a website described by a WP admin, who is now an ArbCom member, as being 'an attack site'. Is it really your contention that my challenging the use of a document on Wikipedia (it's use was introduced and was supported by an individual who have since been banned from Wikiedia) is representative of my being involved in a 'bitter feud' ? --Nik Wright2 (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
You neglect to mention that the "attack site" targeting you was the website of one of Rawat's organisations. JN466 01:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I have filed an amendment request at RFAR, in the spirit of mediation, asking that discussions that take place in this mediation will be priveliged, and cannot be used as evidence against other editors in other forms of dispute resolution. I believe that this will allow freer discussion, where you can speak your mind, without fear of retribution. Best, Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 23:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    • What is the practical effect? What could we say or do differently than without the amendment? Does it mean that editors will be free from the requirements to be civil and assume good faith?   Will Beback  talk  01:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I did not draw the conclusion that the mediation would free us from the requirements to be civil and assume good faith, but rather the content of the discussion is unrestricted but presumerably directed towards resolving the issues of contention. Terry Macro (talk) 01:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)+
      • It's intention isn't to allow editors to be uncivil, or to assume bad faith. It would, in my view, remove a possible obstruction to candid and open discussion - fear of retribution. The idea came from the MedCom policy, and I think it would serve well here. It would do no harm, and would possibly do a world of good. A clause is included, to ensure that this privelige to speak openly is not misused. Feel free to comment at RFAR. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 03:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
        • If that's all that is intended then I don't understand the point of the amendment. Nothing in the ArbCom's remedy prevents discussion.   Will Beback  talk  01:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
          • During the Arbcom the now banned editors were accused of "treating Wikipedia as a battleground" in addition to other complaints. I didn't understand that. The diffs looked like nothing more than robust debate at worst. Editing in such an environment is like treading on egg shells. Steve's proposal would overcome that problem. --Zanthorp (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Will moved the cult / sect / NRM thing from the 1770s section to the lede yet again less than 8 hours before agreeing to abide by mediation ground rules. The second rule would, I think, prohibit such an edit after agreement. Waiting until other editors had given their agreement, then making such an edit is, IMO, not acting in the spirit of mediation. In order to revert Will's edit I have withdrawn my agreement. --Zanthorp (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The IP that moved it never discussed the move.[3] It's that kind of editing that is so disruptive here. We already discussed this extensively and there was no agreement to move it to the middle of the text - it was drafted as a sentence for the intro. I waited to unde the edit because there's a 1-revert-per-week restriction. As far as mediation goes, it hasn't started yet, and this wasn't on the list of items to be mediated. I suggest that you add it to the list and re-add yourself to the mediation.   Will Beback  talk  05:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes you people make it so hard to go away for a few days...had a great time diving, thanks for asking! Anyway...in agreement with Will, it was never agreed on to be elsewhere in the article, it was crafted to be in the lead, and it was a drive-by edit that vandalized the article in the first place. I have reverted back to what had consensus. -- Maelefique (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Zanthorp has solid reasoning -- this edit warring is not in the spirit of mediation. Yes, I did a revert a new IP drive by removing the new lede text without any discussion, after seeing an uninvolved admin in the AE page state that Maelefique doing the same thing was justified as just restoring the original version. However, I then undid my own revert after the same admin later stated that the removal from the lede was not clearly vandalism. At that point I requested mediation to solve this very issue, as I realised that if the 'restoring original version' argument didn't hold up, then there was no formal support for continuously restoring the new lede content, even though we laboured over it for several weeks. I must also disagree with Will that it "wasn't on the list of items to be mediated", as I believe I clearly articulated that I wanted this to be priority item for mediation.

Let's just let it be for the moment, and gain rock solid justificatiion for keeping whatever changes are agreed through mediation. Let's face it - its a losing battle at the moment anyway, as 1 revert per week will lose out against an unlimited number of drive by reverts the other way from anonymous IP addresses. Besides, I feel that without uninvolved admin support for a particular version, this behavior is close to if not crossing the boundary of slow edit warring, and as such possibly in breach of Arbcom remedies. --Savlonn (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the ground rules should include semi-protecting the affected articles to prevent interference from drive-by IPs.   Will Beback  talk  18:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Yep, however this can only be a temporary measure. I have a couple of suggestions on how to manage this. Firstly, either semi-protect an agreed baseline version, or get agreement from arbcom that all undiscussed, significant changes to baseline can be considered vandalism and be immediately reverted outisde of 1RR/week. However, I realistically think we'll only get agreement on a baseline before the lede was changed, even if we think it is the 'wrong' version. Secondly, as a ground rule, I would like to see agreed changes during mediation become 'sticky' by default. This means that any future changes without consensus including "because I don't like it" can also allowed to be reverted unlimited times back to version reached during mediation, without penalty. This will solve problems such as we had with the new lede text, by utilising the mediation process to give 'teeth' to the governance around changes. Otherwise, the tactics used to move the lede text back to the body without consensus could be used ad-infinitum in future, thus undermining the entire mediation process. --Savlonn (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I favor allowing mediation 'agreed' versions of sections having the privelege of unlimited reversion if changed again without consensus, as semi-protection will not solve the 'equalwhom' scenario of creating disposable accounts for the purpose of edit warring. --Savlonn (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Not long after the last mediation ended an otherwise uninvolved editor came through and, with little discussion, re-wrote or deleted a large amount of text that had been carefully developed and laboriously discussed. Mediation isn't binding, and this isn't even formal mediation. Perhaps the mistake was in taking it seriously in the first place.   Will Beback  talk  19:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I empathize with and share your concern. It is for this reason that I am discussing getting some proper governance incorporated in the ground rules, and referred to Arbcom for rubber stamping. Surely we should identify up-front what is broken and how the system can be gamed, then through the mediator request amendments to the arbcom remedies to prevent the underming of the mediation process? If this can't be done, then there would be a fundumental governance issue with the mediation and arbitration process and I would question the value of continued involvement. However, I hope this isn't the case and will continue to treat this process in good faith until such time as I have reason not to.
I'm done here for the day - time to lighten up and watch the replay of England unfairly robbing Australia of victory in the first cricket test series. --Savlonn (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've done some deep thought with regards to this issue - that of possible ways and means to undermine the mediation process. It presents a real doozy of an issue, because there is no process on Wikipedia in place to make mediation binding in any way, shape, or form - other than a gentelmen's agreement, I guess. At present, unless some changes are made, anything that goes on within a mediation isn't concrete, and can be changed by anyone at a later date. I'm concerned about this, and I do think something should be implemented to the effect that if something within the mediation does gain a clear consensus, that there needs to be a clear consensus in future, if it is to be changed. Blanket semi-protection, for the duration of the mediation, might be a wise idea, as well. I think that this issue needs to be discussed further before something is presented at RFAR, but I am still thinking this over, and I'd encourage you all to discuss this here, at least so I can discuss my thoughts over with you. Best. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 21:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If mediation was in effect required by the Arbcom decision, would not any breach of the mediation process be subject to Arbcom enforcement ? --Nik Wright2 (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, mediation wasn't required, it was encouraged. That said, unless an amendment is made to the RFAR somewhat stating that attempts to undermine the mediation process will be looked upon unfavourably, I don't think any enforcement would come into play. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 22:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with Savlonn, Zanthorp has solid reasoning and this edit warring is not in the spirit of mediation. In order to revert Will's edit I have withdrawn my agreement. Terry Macro (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Guys, mediation hasn't even started yet. So until it does, everyone is free to use their one edit a week. But I am sure you realise that this to and fro is not a long-term solution; so please let us all commit to addressing this as the first issue in mediation when mediation actually kicks off, and please re-add your names. To reiterate, until Steve actually says mediation discussions on a particular content issue have begun, the ground rules will not kick in for any editor. JN466 00:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
My concern is that even if we find an agreement on this issue in mediation, the agreement will be undone after the mediation is complete or by an uninvolved editor. Is there a solution or is this topic doomed to perpetual disputes?   Will Beback  talk  00:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Can't we have just a little bit of reasonable behavior here? Right on the eve of mediation, this latest episode does not inspire confidence. Why has this sect / cult / NRM material been inserted into the lede yet again even though it obviously does not belong there? Maelefique is wrong. There was never any consensus for this. Inserting this material in the lede cannot be anything other than a POV driven attempt to malign the subject by association. We have seen far too much of this. The teachings of PR article, for example, still contains material from a questionable source and a reference to people who practice Rawat's meditation as "Rawat worshipers." Previously it was "the Rawat cult." Enough is enough! This is not what Wikipedia is about. --Zanthorp (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Come on Zanthorp, it may be a perfectly respectable position not to want to have this material in the lede, but it is also a perfectly respectable position to want it there. The movement was controversial, it was one of the main "cults" in the public consciousness, along with Scientology and ISKCON, and its controversiality is currently cited to Geaves, a highly sympathetic source, who spends a full page on detailing these controversies. JN466 00:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Dunno ... perpetual mediation, and compulsory participation in it for anyone wishing to edit the relevant passages? JN466 00:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Short of that, go back to arbcom and ask them to apply the Scientology solution here. No premies, no ex-premies, no single-purpose accounts. I'm fed up myself. JN466 00:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Third idea – fully protect the article in its baseline version, and allow edits only through the mediation process. JN466 01:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I've considered a multituide of options that could be used to ensure that the progress in this mediation will not be futile. One would be, in some way, making the result of this mediation somewhat binding, in that significant changes that had achieved prior consensus, in this mediation, must be discussed and have consensus before being changed. With regards to what to do for the time being, I personally feel that the agreement from last year suited better than a compromised version, that "none of the disputed text" could be changed while it was being discussed. That's somewhat prone to gaming, whereas a flat out "do not edit it" can't be gamed. If an article is edited, it's obvious. I do think that some form of binding resolution, for this mediation, might be wise, but there's no measures in place at this time to make a mediation binding. I think this would have to be discussed with arbcom-l. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 03:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Jayen466, the movement may have been controversial etc etc at the time but we are not talking about the lede for DLM, but for PR, and the requirements of the BLP is far more stringent as i am sure you are well aware. BTW, what is the source for DLM as being "one of the main "cults" in the public consciousness". You may have discussed this here before, but I would like to see this reference for myself. The reason i ask this is that in my country, DLM was just one of a swag of groups that often were clumped together in the eyes of the media and were in general indistinguishable to the general public. But saying DLM was one of the "main" organisations in this group is taking this to another step altogether, and I have not seen anything to support this assertion. Terry Macro (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "The proliferation of NRMs in the 1970s gave birth to a negative cult discourse, and Maharaji and Divine Light Mission found themselves positioned sharply within it." -- Geaves in Gallagher/Ashcraft 2006
  • "... six of the most prominent, controversial groups called cults: the Children of God, the Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, the Divine Light Mission of Guru Maharaj Ji, the Church of Scientology, and Jim Jones' People's Temple." -- David G. Bromley, Anson Shupe, Strange Gods: The Great American Cult Scare, 1981, p. 22
  • "... the largest international religious cults of the seventies and eighties -- the Unification Church, Church of Scientology, ISKCON, Divine Light Mission and The Way International ..." -- Conway/Siegelman 2005
  • "Unification Church, Scientology, ISKCON, the Children of God, and the Divine Light Mission. These five movemements became generally known as youth religions" -- Seiwert, in Richardson, p. 86.
  • "The more exotic religions that gained popularity in the seventies include the Church of Scientology, founded by science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, and the Divine Light Mission of Guru Maharaj Ji." [4].
There are many other references like that, which refer to Maharaji directly. Saying that he attracted controversy is not a BLP issue. It's a fact, and an integral part of his reception in the 1970s. JN466 02:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Jayen466, thank you for the references as I realise I have to come up to speed on the subject. I did notice however of the five references you provided, only one labelled DLM categorically as a cult Conway/Siegelman 2005. One called DLM part of a mix of controversial groups called cults, ( Strange Gods: The Great American Cult Scare, 1981, p. 22 ) which is backtracking from saying these controversial groups “are” cults (in this quote anyway). Anyone can claim any group is a cult but claiming that that DLM is “part of a mix of controversial groups called cults” acknowledges this is less a statement of fact, but a statement of name-calling or a particular POV (as opposed to a NPOV). One called DLM a NRM which gave birth to a negative cult discourse, (Geaves in Gallagher/Ashcraft 2006) but this is not a direct declaration that DLM is a cult either. Why didn’t Geaves state DLM was a cult explicitly? One labels the leading movements as “youth religions” (Richardson) and one calls DLM an “exotic religion”
Your references do provide confirmation of DLM’s elevated status in the early days as your previous post stated, but only one of these five references categorically states that DLM was labelled a “cult”. Two places the word cult near DLM without categorically stating DLM was a cult, and two did not use the word “cult” at all, labelling DLM an “exotic religion” and a “youth religion”. If all or most had said DLM was categorically a “cult” then there are grounds for saying “it was one of the main "cults" in the public consciousness”. However I have to admit that all these references do support your assertion that the “movement was controversial”. As a writer myself, the placement of words is critical to get a NPOV right. For example when I read Geaves “The proliferation of NRMs in the 1970s gave birth to a negative cult discourse,” what I see is someone who does not see the possible relationship between the movements and cult as black and white, at least in this quote – it is obviously more complicated and Geaves is prevaricating so as to not provide a biased or unsubstantiated statement. Even placing PR and DLM at the "sharp end" is not a final judgement but indicates the heat or intensity of the claims and counter-claims. I have been brushing up on Wiki guidelines and weighting seems to be very important in producing a NPOV. Though we are not editing on the main page, if I used weighting on the five quotations you provided, I could not categorically call DLM a “cult”. However PR was definitely a controversial figure at the time based on the quotes you provided.
Maelefique, I did not know you went diving. I am faced with the same problem myself soon – how do I snorkel on a tropical island and keep myself abreast of these discussions? Terry Macro (talk) 04:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we should wait for the mediation to start before getting into a big discussion of the content and sourcing issues. Otherwise we may just have to repeat ourselves.   Will Beback  talk  05:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
JN, maybe I overreacted. I don't want to impede mediation. It might work if binding solutions can be applied. Steve has suggested ideas that might be workable. The issues are not as simple as they first appear.
Yes, there is no doubt that Rawat was controversial. That probably should go in the lede. Yes, the DLM was labeled a cult (and frankly, with Rennie Davis involved I'm not surprised). Here's where it gets complicated. Journalists who saw an easy target, anti-cult writers and academics with a religious affiliation mostly applied the cult label. Other writers didn't. Some were scathingly critical of cult-labeling journalists over their hyperbolic spin. The picture is not as simple as "it was called a cult, therefore it's notable, and it goes in the article in the most prominent position" out of any context that would convey the real picture to readers. Considering the structure of the article alone, apart from other issues, that material does not belong in the lede. I firmly believe that and I also believe I would be wrong to roll over and cave in to Will and Maelefique merely because they are doggedly persistent. I think there is a larger issue that encompasses these discussions. I would like to raise that during mediation. Can we return the article to an earlier, stable version prior to mediation and then discuss these issues within the framework that Steve has proposed?
I can appreciate the way you feel. The day I start feeling fed up with these discussions, I'll be out of here in a New York second. Lately I've had the pleasure of working on an unrelated article that seriously needs a rewrite. It's been quietly pleasant, nowhere near as interesting as this topic though. On a positive note, during the Arbcom, I briefly worked on this article with Will and we did eventually agree on, and achieve a couple of improvements. --Zanthorp (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Got Steve's message, have agreed again to abide by ground rules. Now, can we PLEASE return this article to an earlier more stable version before the start of mediation. --Zanthorp (talk) 07:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
There wasn't ever consensus to edit war, either. I'm here to help, but you need to let me help you. Please re-agree to the ground rules, and we will then commence mediation, and discuss issues in detail. But continually undoing each other's edits is not productive, and it has to stop. The reason that this case is under mediation is because there is disagreement about the content - obviously, and mediation is designed to help foster consensus on issues such as the one that everyone is edit warring over. I suggest you just accept that you may not like the state of the article right now but are willing to discuss the issue, in a controlled enviroment. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 07:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, I have undone my edit for the sake of avoiding edit warring, but I agree with Zanthorp, can we return this article to an earlier more stable version before the start of mediation? Terry Macro (talk) 08:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll look through the article history and decide on a stable, recent edit (the only edit I know for sure that was stable was from last year, when I made changes to the article per medcab agreement). I feel that I'm the best person to do this out of anyone, as I can look at things without any personal opinion of Rawat, or the article. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 08:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • (To Zanthorp/Terrymacro) We'll discuss it in mediation. I have no interest in writing into the article that "the DLM was a cult"; but we have to be clear that it had a negative reception in the 1970s. When I said it was one of the main "cults" in the public consciousness at that time this meant it was one of the main groups to be referred to as a cult by wide sections of the population. Here is another good quote:
  • "Let us examine some common features of all the groups that society as a whole calls cults. We must bear in mind, however, that the label cult is partly in the eye of the beholder, and that a remarkable array of groups has had the eponym applied to them. Groups that this author has heard called cults by concerned relatives of members have included Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jewry, Born Again Christians, Bahai, IBM, est, and Gestalt, to name but a few. For purposes of this chapter, however, we will use as examples groups about which there appears to be considerable external unanimity. That is, these four–Hare Krishna, the Unification Church, Children of God, and the Divine Light Mission—have probably been held in less esteem by more people than most of the other groups combined (other similarly vilified groups models [sic] which have inspired widespread fear and loathing include Scientology, The Way International, Bagwan Rajneesh, Jews for Jesus, Synanon, and others. -- Galanter, Cults and new religious movements, p. 95 JN466 08:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I am agreeable to going back to the baseline version from before the lede was changed, as per Zanthorp and Savlonn, and then let's get this show on the road and hammer out a compromise.
  • I suggest we fully protect the article and get Will or another admin to make the edits agreed to in mediation. JN466 08:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Stable version

I have reviewed the history of the article, and the version I have reverted to seems the most stable, in recent times. If there are changes that need to be made, it can be discussed in the mediation, but a stable version needs to be established, and has. Page protection might be in order here. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 08:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If we do protect the page, I propose that in this exceptional case we do not place the customary template at the top of the article. It would be rather disfiguring to have that in there long-term. Instead I propose we add a prominent note at the top of the talk page, inviting anyone wishing to edit the article to join the mediation effort. JN466 08:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Alright, but I'll ask it to be iconified, so it's clear the page is protected. An editnotice might be useful, too. They can be created in mainspace, if I recall correctly. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 08:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, icon and editnotice sounds good. We could have a box formatted like this, pointing to the mediation effort, displayed when people click on the Source tab (which replaces the edit tab in a protected article, for those unfamiliar with page protection). WP:EDITNOTICE. JN466 09:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Way ahead of you there. I also think I'll discuss with the committee whether some "teeth" can be added to this mediation, as in, whether this mediation can be made somewhat binding. I'll also discuss blanket semi-protection across the articles. I can't see why anonymous editors should be able to edit these articles without penalty, which they can at present. Actually writing up something at RFAR now. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 09:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Before we get into discussing "big issues", I suggest we first deal with the consensus-edits that were made after the "stable version". In particular, the changes made to the section headings to chronological dates rather than themes. IIRC, there was explicit agreement and no disagreement on those changes. There may be some other similar edits that are non-controversial which should also be restored.   Will Beback  talk  09:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that if there was clear consensus for those, then there really shouldn't be any problems with re-gaining that consensus during the mediation. It's a win-win situation. If these uncontroversial changes that were made after the stable version I reverted to, were indeed, uncontroversial, then a quick discussion should determine just that, and the edits can be restored, but I think it's unwise to start pointing at diffs now and restoring them, without discussing it, or we'll be in a "You have the last day of the working week off" situation. (If you have friday off, thursday would be the last day in the working week, so you'd get thursday off too, and so on). If that makes sense. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 09:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Way ahead of me indeed! :) Looks great. I agree there were some small changes after this version that might be worth restoring (like his emancipation) and agree we should discuss these as the first agenda items of the mediation. JN466 09:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've made an additional statement at RFAR, and I hope that some of these issues are addressed, and agreed upon. A good foundation when we start mediation would be for the best, I am sure. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 10:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think it might be better to look at full protection? Semi-protection will deal with the drive-by IP edits, but it won't protect us from the SPAs or, indeed, the occasional bona-fide editor who might innocently wander into the article and undo 3 months of mediation in one well-meaning edit. JN466 10:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Permanent full protection isn't feasible, and article mentorship could be used, too. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 11:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay. JN466 11:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

MedCom has approached me suggesting that the case be moved to MedCom, with me leading the mediation, and a committee mediator assisting. This would be the easiest way to extend the privilege of mediation to this case. Nothing would change except that one committee mediator will join me (which should make workload management at my end easier) and that the case will take place instead on a subpage of the medcom (and not the medcab). I've presented a number of items for discussion for the committee to discuss, and I await their reply, but I was wondering what all of you, who have agreed to mediation, think. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 22:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, that was more or less the plan last summer when other events intervened. I thinks it's a good idea. The current plan for the mediation is more formal than informal anyway.   Will Beback  talk  23:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Fine by me. --Savlonn (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Its fine by me but I have never been through such a process so I don't really know what is involved and what MedCom is etc but I am sure I will learn as we go along. Terry Macro (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I went through the same learning curve last year! In a nutshell, Medcom (WP:Mediation_Committee) is a formal dispute resolution process, which was set up along with the Abitration Committee. On the other hand, Medcal (WP:Mediation_Cabal) of which Steve is a member, is an informal mediation process that anyone can volunteer to participate in. However, in this case, because Steve has requested formal privileges normally only granted to the formal mediation provided by Medcom, and because this case is perceived as being large and complex, it has been suggested that the mediation take place under the auspices of Medcom, with Steve leading in the same way he would under Medcal, supported by other Medcom mediators. --Savlonn (talk) 08:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Formal mediation is a good idea. JN466 11:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Savlon, thanks for the background information on Medcom etc. Terry Macro (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions

How mediation can proceed when there is still an outstanding issue of TerryMacro's conflict of interest? Just because he feels he doesn't have one doesn't mean he does not have one. The subject is not closed on the COI noticeboard. Also, from my observations here of the past few days, there isn't even consensus here on how to proceed with informal mediation. The last time there was informal mediation, everyone agreed not to edit the articles (that means all the Rawat-related articles). As far as I remember, everyone involved complied. Therefore, there was no need to lock any of the articles in question. My suggestion is that a large tag be placed on each of the Rawat articles stating that no one can edit the articles unless they comply with the informal mediation rules. What's so difficult about that? Just because this is Wikipedia doesn't mean that everyone has an unalienable right to edit anything they want. That's just dumb-assed thinking. Sylviecyn (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Sylviecyn, I am quiet happy to resolve the COI issue if you give me a hint about how to do something about it. You must realise that before entering the war zone I edited some obscure astrology pages and I never heard of a concept more sophisticated than NPOV - and I think I was the one that brought it up. RS did not exist as the challenge was to get any source at all before concerning if it was reliable or not. The only sophisticated Wiki rules I came across was from following PR, DLM, etc on my watchlist, or what I called "news from the front line". However while I am happy to proceed with resolving the COI other than falling over dead or surrending to the blue meenies, I can't see my way through. Are there any Wiki lawyers around for some advice? I did ask WB, and apart from a pleasant short sermon and some crytptic remarks, I was left in the dark as in an earlier part of the discussion he mentioned further action would be taken against me if I continued editing or removing sourced information but then in the cryptic message said I would be judged by my edits. Have they put out "Wiki Editing for Dummies" yet? Terry Macro (talk) 08:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh, I don't think you're a "dummy" at all. Quite the contrary. Btw, WP:WL is a pejorative on Wikipedia, so you might not want to use that term in reference to others. Read the appropriate policies and guidelines concerning your COI and let's get on with this. You have a COI. Declare it on your userpage. Make a simple decision already and let's get off of this merry-go-round. Or, the easiest way to deal with it would be for you not to edit the Rawat articles at all. Or declare your COI, and limit your editing to non-controversial topics within the Rawat articles. That's what I've always done -- only comment on the article talk pages and leave the actual editing to those without a COI. Make a decision one way or another and please let's move on. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Resolving COI issues basicaly entails making a reasonable attempt to reassure other editors about off Wiki involvements. Given you don't dispute that you've held positions in organisations that are connected to Rawat, simply stating what those positions were/are and the relevant dates on your talk page should satisfy he majority, if not all COI requirements. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
      • One of my biggest gripes on the Rawat article talk pages (even recently) has been the characterizations by so-called "pro-Rawat editors" about so-called "anti-Rawat editors." I might add that noticing that TerryMacro has a COI is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about personal slurs and innuendo being made. In particular, there have been so many accusations by some against Will Beback it's impossible to count them anymore. Will is, in my estimation, neither pro nor con on this subject. There are times when I agree with an edit of his and times when I don't. Will has done research on the subject and has applied the reliable sources accordingly. But, that's not good enough for some. They have to go around Wikipedia complaining about him, characterizing his pov, and by making personal attacks. This article is on probation for just that kind of editor behavior and three editors were banned for a year due to it. There have also been snide remarks made about so-called "ex-premies" and their associations off-wiki. Those kind of comments have no place on an article talk page. So, when it comes to a someone's COI or off-wiki association, the best recommendation I could make would be for editors to use more personal restraint, and to think long and hard about what they are writing here about others before they hit the "save page" radio button. If editors here don't start doing that, well, then this article is going to be stalled in the ditch forever with no progress with a complete breakdown in consensus-building -- forget about compromises. And no amount of mediation, formal or informal will resolve anything. This kind of nonsense has been going on for over five years now. It's time for some people to learn and employ self-restraint, despite what their personal feelings are about other editors here and/or the subject. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Sylviecyn, my reference to Wikipedia Editing for Dummies was not implying I was a dummy, it was a comment on the Wiki style of outlining their policies, rules and guideleines - its all rather fragmented. I have taken on board what you have said but your position appears much the same as WB, NW and M in that I seem to have the alternative between acknowledging a COI or not editing or limiting my editing severely. I went back and looked at what the non-aligned editors said about the alleged COI and in their eyes I am not guilty of a COI, though I may have sailed close to the wind re the affidavit. If it is Wiki's intention that someone in my situation should declare a COI I would, but I have read the guidelines, looked at all the comments, especially from the non-aligned editors, and I don't see I have a case to answer for. However I am going to apply due diligence and look for precedents. I assume i can go and look at previous COI cases that have gone to dispute resolution. Can anyone recommend one or more previous cases when an ex-employee associated with the subject in question has been taken to dispute resolution or some other situation with similar parameters? Terry Macro (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Editors with disclosed or undisclosed conflicts have been disruptive on this topic because of their mixed allegiances, and so the other editors are wary. The most relevant case to point you to is WP:RFAR/Prem Rawat 2, in which two editors were topic banned. While their ban wasn't explicitly linked to violating WP:COI, if they had followed the advice in that guideline they would not have been sanctioned. In particular, an example to avoid repeating is that of user:Momento, whose COI is apparently similar to your own. Jossi's repeated refusals to follow the COI guideline also caused many problems including the use of false accounts which led to his eventual blocking. Undisclosed conflicts are the worse than disclosed ones because when they are eventually revealed (and they almost always are) they call into question all of the editor's previous contributions and arguments as prima facie evidence of bad faith editing. I hope everyone editing this article realizes that and doesn't try to hide behind misleading account names or personnas. Wikipedia is well-equipped to handle the robust debate of issues and ideas without editors resorting to false positions.   Will Beback  talk  09:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
          • I have looked at the WP:RFAR/Prem Rawat 2 but still could not see how it related to me, and as you are the one that has made the allegation of COI against me you cannot be an impartial observer of the situation. I am more than happy to have a third party view, or if the COI issue is part of the mediation case hopefully it will get resolved there and the whole COI issue may get resolved for me, and many of the other editors involved. I did not become an Wiki editor to damage Wikipedia, my concerns at Wiki are first and foremeost for the best interests of Wiki's NPOV, not any particular POV I may have. Terry Macro (talk) 09:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Slightly short of time this evening, I'd ask all parties to agree at RFM. I'll go over details in the morning. Best, Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 11:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Terms of Reference question

I am posting this question here, as I didn't wish to disturb the mediation pages before it has formally commenced. Please feel free to re-direct me to a more appropriate page if required.

I note the following text on the Mediation page under the heading Editors involved in this dispute

Mediation is suitable only for content disputes. The following editors should therefore be those who are party to a disagreement over the content of an article.

Does this statement mean that only content related discussion will be within scope of this mediation? If so, this statement contradicts the first item under the section :Issues to be Mediated: 1. Reinstating undisputed edits

Mediation around reinstating undisputed edits is clearly not directly about content, but is about governance and 'rules' around process and behavior. I would appreciate clarification from the mediators in repsect of:

a) a clear statement as to whether such non-content related discussion is or or is not by exception within scope of this mediation,
b) if this is within scope of mediation, what the process would be for implementing agreements made in respect of this topic during mediation. --Savlonn (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Savlonn, I believe this merely relates to #Stable_version and our reinstating any undisputed edits made after the version Steve reverted to. JN466 18:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok - that makes sense as a first item. I mis-interpreted this statement as being for defing a process to re-instate undisputed edits that had subsequently been changed or deleted without consensus.
I therefore apply my above clarification questions to item 8. Making edits without consensus - should a formalised process of consensus be defined for the topics in question? That is the nominated item I was attempting to clarify.--Savlonn (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
To be clear, I am referring to this . If item 8. of the agenda is formally within scope of the mediation, and we resolve that a formalised process of consensus should be applied to future revisions of text agreed through mediation, then how would such processes be implemented and governed? --Savlonn (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I have a similar question. If formal mediation is only related to content, then how does addressing people's COI (Conflicts of Interest) fit into mediation? And in what respects will COI be addressed? I'm asking in a general sense, and not directly referencing specific people, myself included. It would be good to iron out these issues prior to commencement of mediation. Thanks! Sylviecyn (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


Pro-prem, anti-Prem or neutral?

Sorry, but I have difficulty to understand how a person can really, honestly and absolutely be neutral with Prem Rawat. After you hear or read about him, either you accept the possibility that what he says may be true, and then you become an aspirant/follower, and then you are clearly pro-Prem, or you think what he says is not true, and then he can only be a) a person with dishonest intentions who wants your money, or b) a person who is mentally disturbed, or c) both.

If you have been a follower, it is not automatic, but possible or likely, that you consider Prem a person who has robbed you at least of you precious time, and if you have donated money, little or much, also robbed you of your money, and therefore you consider Prem a thief.

However, I do accept the possibility that someone who has not been a follower, nor wants to become one, but is interested in Prem Rawat as a social phenomenon, may not be completely against nor completely for, and strives to maintain a balance, and is willing to help with this biography. I have seen people that seem to belong to this rare kind of persons who, for the purpose of Prem’s biography, in my almost humble opinion, are as rare and as valuable as a diamond.

Second however: I cannot accept that a person that claims to be neutral, and automatically (or almost) opposes every positive thing to be included in the biography, and favours every negative thing, may belong to the neutral kind.

This said, I cannot understand what it takes for some editors to accept that yes, Prem Rawat could be considered a cult leader in the seventies, I can accept that, though IMAHO he never was, but after he changed so clearly and expressly said he wanted his movement to depart from his father’s organisation, ways, etc. except in the essential part of the teaching, that is, from the eighties onward, there is no reasonable reason to consider Prem a cult leader any longer.

So what is the problem with saying something like “Prem Rawat was considered by some as a cult leader in the seventies, but after he radically changed his organisation in the eighties he cannot be considered one”? As I see it, the biography is on the way to need a mediation for each of the 4,227 words it has now. Sorry, I do not think I can help you, I am already 65.

I cannot understand why someone who does not propose any dogmas, rules, change in lifestyle, does not personally ask for money, etc. etc. can be termed a cult leader, except in the fifth meaning given by Merriam Webster, which is not the usual understanding of the word “cult”.

I am no longer Pedrero. In my present Wiki reincarnation with a Spanish e-mail, I am PremieLover, but my page is still blank, sorry, no time. But I have had time to add a new joke, and the list of books I have found interesting enough to read them more than once, in my old Dutch email Wiki reincarnation as Pedrero.--Pedrero (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You left out a category of editors, which I include myself in. That would be the category of editors that are not involved on either side of the subject of Prem Rawat, but feel very strongly that he should be portrayed with as much historical accuracy as possible. Having said that, I think I agree with you, there's a very strong argument to be made that he was a cult leader, and a very strong argument to made that he is no longer a cult leader. Both points should probably be in the article. Part of the problem there is that he is not notable for not being a cult leader. Take away his fame from the 70's, and he's probably not in WP at all. -- Maelefique (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks Malefique, I am pleased to see someone agrees with me in something, after spending most of my life as a brainwashed alien. In a way we are all brainwashed and programmed, only by different things. Though I have some difficulty to understand how someone can be neither pro-Prem nor Anti-Prem nor neutral, no problem to make another category, or more if necessary, as long as it is free, as after living in The Netherlands I have become oversensitive to money issues. I would rather have no Prem biography at all in Wikipedia than one based on information provided by ignorant and corrupt US mainstream media. The only reliable media I see in the US are AlterNet, Aavaz, Michael Moore and little "moore". --PremieLover (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I personally have no opinion on the value of Rawat's philosophy or teachings. They may offer ultimate peace and salvation to people, or they may be a big scam, or somewhere in between, I don't know. I agree, however, with Mael that our purpose here is merely to write about Rawat objectively according to what the available sources say. I originally became involved in this topic because, in my opinion, a Wikipedia admin, since departed, was, in bad faith, trying to use Wikipedia to promote Rawat and his teachings. The article Will BeBack recently, successfully nominated for FA, Millennium '73, is a great example of what we're supposed to be doing here. Will and any others who assisted him did an excellent job with that article. Cla68 (talk) 06:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry to tell you Cla68, you seem to be embarked in an impossible mission. If you want to… write about Rawat “objectively”, according to what available source say... and if “available” sources are exclusively (or almost) US mainstream media, known to have lied too often at least since the times of the Spanish-American war, and that is a loooong time, I am afraid your task is going to require nothing less than magic. I think it is a paradox that the people who know more about Prem, who IMAHO are premies, are practically banned to say anything, as official sources are not reliable and private reports neither, both dismissed as propaganda. Which by the way is the main thing mainstream media does, as I and many more see it.
    • And congratulations for the article on Millennium. Yes, it was a lot of work, twice as big as the biography, which at first seems strange, considering it is just one more of probably thousands of events where Prem has done exactly the same along decades: speak about Knowledge. Only the media circus was different, but that is what we, who are a little like children, (or should be, according to Jesus) really like: the circus. But after thinking that thousands of books have been written about the last 3 years of the life of Jesus and only one on the preceding 16 years (The Aquarian Gospel), I can also accept that one event may have twice the size of the biography and the rest nothing. Again, honest congratulations for the effort. And sorry if my comment comes late, I have little time left.--PremieLover (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
      • You're mistaken in a couple of key points PremieLover. The first, and most important misconception, is that premies are banned from saying anything here. Only people that break the rules get banned, the more seriously they break the rules, the more severely they get banned. Whether they are premies or not is irrelevant; "Play by the rules", that's relevant. Your second misconception is regarding the policies of Wikipedia, it is not attempting to create articles of "truth", but merely to create articles that can have their facts verified by reliable sources, to you (and many more?) at least, these may not be close enough to the same thing. -- Maelefique (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Missing Recent Archives!

I note that the most recent archive (#40) of this page is only until April 2009. I cannot access the archives from April to July 2009. Can someone help? Savlonn (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The most recent archive is 42. (Which of course is always the answer!) -- Maelefique (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
The archives work for me. April starts in 40. #41 goes from 2 April 2009 to 3 July. #42 starts 29 June and goes to 6 July.   Will Beback  talk  00:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean. You're looking at the "archive" box on the side. That's manually updated. There's a new, automatic list built into the talk header near the top. Note that it also has an index and a seach box to make old discussions easier to find. We can probably delete the standalone archive box.   Will Beback  talk  06:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Ahh! Thanks for that Will. I didn't notice the archive section of the talk header due to all the 'noise' of the header section it was mixed in with. As you can gather, I only saw the standalone box, which did stand out. Problem solved! Savlonn (talk) 07:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
While I liked the automatic archive listings at the top as well, it seems more standardized to have the archives box off to the side like it is now. As well as being easier to see/find, it also provides with 2 different ways to search through the archives (by using the newly included search, or by browsing the archive index). Also the top of this talkpage is cluttered enough as it is without that big template that was there. Just my 2 cents, but either way, I'm pretty sure I can refrain from freaking out if you revert my archive related/housekeeping changes. --Maelefique (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:RAWAT

Further information: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat_4 § WP:RAWAT

Wikipedia:WikiProject Prem Rawat (shortcut WP:RAWAT):

--Francis Schonken (talk) 04:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Source problem for the Festival Of Peace

The sentence "In 2006, Rawat spoke at the Festival Mundial da Paz (International Festival for Peace) in Brazil.[105][106]" is not supported by the sources. The first source says it is confirmed he will appear, and the second source is a list of speakers scheduled for 2 days in the future. Neither states that he was actually there. Do we have another source, would a TPRF press release saying he was there be good enough here? -- Maelefique (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"unduly self-serving"

I do not have the time right now, as I have a busy work day ahead of me, but I plan to re-remove all those Cagan references inserted by Jayen later today unless someone comes up with a better rationale for their inclusion, other than "it's not unduly self-serving". Since when is that a WP policy?? Did we not *JUST* finish deciding we *MAY* use Cagan, on a case by case basis, if the editor can justify its usage in each case? Am I missing where Jayen has done this, or is this just a case of an editor who didn't like the outcome of a process so he's choosing to ignore it?? -- Maelefique (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The removal of the references was not supported by consensus in mediation, nor did it reflect the process suggested by the mediator. The unlocking of the article bypassed the mediation process completely.
I thought we had agreed that we would refrain from making edits to areas currently subject to mediation discussions, unless such edits reflected consensus. --JN466 19:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The "unduly self-serving" criterion is part of WP:SELFPUB. While the source we are dealing with here is not strictly speaking self-published, it is also not fully "third-party", as required of our best sources, due to apparent links between the publisher and the subject. Hence the suggestion to treat it as strictly as if it were a self-published source (but no stricter). JN466 19:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
We're actively discussing PIP on the project page. I don't think it'd be helpful to split the discussion. I suggest the any relevant arguments should be made there instead.   Will Beback  talk  20:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The Sources War

When are we going to have a little peace and stop the sources war? Peace seems to be very boring to some.

Why is youTube, for instance, not a reliable source?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9JVym5vvaY

Have a nice day all, pros, antis, neutrals and the 4th rest. --PremieLover (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Material for study of the subject

Hello cyberbrothers. Hello cyberfriends. IMAHO you are both, but please feel free to prefer one or the other, and also to opt for a balanced, neutral 50-50, of course. As you know, I include my enemies in both concepts without any price supplement.

Speaking of YouTube, I have been exploring and discovered a so called “Prem Rawat Documentary on Maharaji” in eight ten-minute parts. I am not sure, but from the title it seems it is adult Prem Rawat's documentary on his early years when he was called Maharaji. People who watch that and read his Wikipedia biography might see some difference.

I suggest that editors of his biography, whether pros or antis, see this Documentary as part of the study on the subject, as this is clearly Prem Rawat's account or view of his early years, it is unthinkable that such a documentary would be published without his agreement.

Some parts could perhaps be of use as a source, it is his closest followers speaking about his early years, so it surely reflects Prem's view, let us say it should be one party in this issue, and the rest is the other party, be it pros, antis, or neutrals, all have subjective views, informed or not, but subjective, we are subjects after all, not objects, so in a way we can only have subjective, not objective views.

I hope I have at least provided you with material for a new debate, (sorry for the joke), and have a nice day.--PremieLover (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Without The Guru

  • Finch, Michael (2009). Without The Guru : How I took my life back after thirty years. Charleston, SC: BookSurge Publishing/Babbling Brook Press. ISBN 1-4392-4504-5 9781439245040. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)

Added newly published book to Further Reading section. Possibly could be put to very selective usage as personal observation as a reference work. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Please remove this "self published" book. It does not qualify for inclusion in a BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.184.66 (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed per WP:SPS and WP:BLP. --JN466 15:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Added to Disputed Sources [5]. In the mean time JN could you exlain why this source is not allowable within the Further Reading section and on what basis you are judging it to violate BLP policy given that it's not currently being used as a source ? --Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Is JN a sanyasin? A disciple of late Osho?87.123.115.107 (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe that "further reading" entries need to follow the rules for sources. That said, anything which appears to contain poorly sourced praise or criticism of the subject should probably be left out. I think it might be hard to distinguish The Finch book from the Cagan book in regard to which belongs and which doesn't.   Will Beback  talk  20:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
"poorly sourced" - please define, Will Beback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.159.72 (talk • contribs)
If a publication makes an outlandish assertion with no sources, then that'd be a problem. Please register an account if you are engaging in talk page discussions. Otherwise we can't tell who we're talking to. (Are you the same person as the other IP accounts in this thread?)   Will Beback  talk  23:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Apologies for not logging in for my previous question. What "outlandish assertion with no sources" are you referring to? Have you read Finch's book? And if "anything which appears to contain poorly sourced praise or criticism of the subject should probably be left out" is to be the arbiter of judgement, then I really think we should be told what constitutes a 'source' - especially as far as autobiographies are concerned.
Hope my slightly chippy attitude doesn't offend, but your somewhat offhand rejection of a possibly useful source of information (which might, hopefully, enhance the current article) jars. Revera (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not rejecting anything. Just the opposite - I'm giving non-specific platitudes. Broadly speaking, the Finch and Cagan books seem similar so far as reliability goes. Which is low on the scale in both cases. But if one is listed in "further reading" then I'm not sure why not the other too.   Will Beback  talk  11:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Glad to hear your intention was not to reject. Maybe both should be in 'further reading' for a balance. However, I must object to your assumption of equivalence as far as reliability is concerned. On one hand, Cagan is a journalist who was paid to produce a favourable literary portrait of her client. Finch's background is very far from that. Can we not wait to see what the book actually says before judging/permitting/disallowing its relevance? Revera (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Per WP:FURTHER, the further reading section is equivalent to, or a substitute for, the external links section. Why should the standards applied to further reading differ from our well-established standards for external links, where self-published material is specifically excluded? --JN466 18:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
According to the "Further Reading" and "External Links" guidelines: "These hyperlinks normally should not appear in the article's body text, nor should they appear in this section if they already appear in the References or Notes section." Therefore, since Cagan and TPRF are both already linked in the article, the footnotes, or references section, both should probably be removed from the Further Reading and External Links sections in this article. I don't see anything in External Links policy that prohibits self-published books. That said, it would be best for editors to actually read the Finch book before rejecting it. Sylviecyn (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't see anything in External Links policy that prohibits self-published books That is in Wikipedia:BLP#External_links and Wikipedia:External_links#Links normally to be avoided. Have you read the book? --JN466 12:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • As JN has not given any properly argued justification for his removal of the Finch book from the Further Reading section, and two other editors have indicated that it at least qualifies as being equal in relevance to the Cagan book, unless there are some cogent arguments to the contrary I will reinstate Finch into the FR section in due course.
JN’s assertion that “the further reading section is equivalent to …………….. the External Links section [of Wikipedia]” is false. All that is said at WP:FURTHER is that “This section may be substituted by an External links section; editors will occasionally merge the two if both are very short.” – this is a ‘layout issue’ and has nothing to do with content policy. There is no WP policy that makes an equivalence between Further Reading and External Links and to do so would be foolish, a published work with ISBN identification and identified authorship is clearly vastly different from an anonymously owned website.
Dr Finch is uniquely qualified to write the book he has, no one (so far) has claimed that Without The Guru should be treated as being other than first person testimony, but for anyone interested in the subject of Prem Rawat, what Finch has written has far more material content than the vacuous Cagan hagiography. For Wikipedia to present Cagan’s work as worthwhile reading, while censoring the existence of the Finch book is perverse and irresponsible.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


Based on my comprehension of WP:LAYOUT , I must agree with JN that the purpose of these sections is clearly equivalent.

  • WP:FURTHER states that that this section should contain: A bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of recommended publications that do not appear elsewhere in the article and were not used to verify article content.
  • WP:External link states that this section should contain: A bulleted list of recommended relevant websites, each accompanied by a short description. These hyperlinks normally should not appear in the article's body text, nor should they appear in this section if they already appear in the References or Notes section.

It is clear from these guidelines that the only intention of the distinction between the sections is to discriminate between additional recommended publications and additional recommended websites. As such, the same criteria methodology should be used to govern acceptable external links and additional publications.

Also, the guidelines for both clearly use the term ‘recommended’. This can only mean recommended by the consensus of the article editors. Therefore, we need first to agree that a publication is recommended reading before placing it in this list.

We clearly have a dispute here, and I think that Will has done the sensible thing by adding it the list of disputed sources. As such, we should cool down the discussion on this talk page and move this to a more structured discussion within the project area.

I suggest that we add the underlying issue to the project list. The underlying issue is: Should there be a second, less strict level of assessment for reference material (whether external links or publications) that are not used as a sources for the article, but are nominated for inclusion as ‘recommended’ additional material?

If this question is resolved in the affirmative, then we would then need to agree a process and/or criteria for agreeing what should be included in this category.Savlonn (talk) 11:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Savlonn, your logical approach is welcome, however it is unfortunately flawed:
  1. It was me rather than Will who added Finch to the disputed sources list on the Rawat Project page and I agree that would ideally be the place to resolve these questions, however JN has already indicated he is not prepared to participate in the previously agreed process, and you have indicated you will not be participating on a regular basis. Even if other editors go ahead with the review process there’s no guarantee of it’s result being accepted here.
  2. The existing list on the project page includes sources currently used not merely in the further reading section but as actual article references – the logic of your proposal is that these should all be removed prior to discussion, I don’t see any chance of agreement to that happening an time soon, although it’s the approach that I would favour.
  3. Style versus Content – WP:LAYOUT is a style policy, it does not define content and it certainly does not say that “a book is the same as a website” – the two require quite different levels of assessment.
  4. The underlying issue – the Rawat Project could certainly ‘debate’ your proposal and as logical as appears I’m not clear what content policy it could be tied to. Further Reading is for sources which axiomatically can’t be used as article sources, so by their very nature they do not meet the sourcing guidelines. The only questions that can really apply are whether the work is relevant to the article and is there a breach of BLP – I’ve read the Finch book there is nothing which could conceivably be a BLP breach. If other editors having read the book can demonstrate a BLP breach then indeed there would be a case for removing it.

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Nick, thanks for your reasoned response. I shall address your points in order below:

  1. This implies that in your opinion the Prem Rawat project is broken in respect of it being accepted here. As such, your concerns should be raised with the moderators/mediators, instead of attempting to justify bypassing the process altogether.
  2. to paraphrase your point, you feel that because the guidelines are not been followed for existing sources in the 'further reading' list that are included in sources (contrary to the guidelines), then the guidelines should not be used for governance until such time as agreement for adherence in reached. If so, then you shouldn't quote the guidelines for making your other points. Either you should accept that the guidelines are valid and adhere to them, or claim that they are invalid and ignore them. However, I can't see how you can logically justify using the guidelines to support some of your arguments, whilst claiming that the guidelines are being ignored and thus aren't application for other points.
  3. Both a book and website are in fact additional reading material. In many cases the same levels of assessment have been applied e.g. Is it a self-published source?
  4. Your argument appears sound and I personally agree with it. As such, I suggest that you recommend this as a definitive criterion for inclusion in 'further reading' and obtain agreement or at least consensus within the project. Savlonn (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Savlonn, a reply to your points - not limited by paragraph as some issues cut across one another:
As regards the “Prem Rawat project is broken”, that’s certainly not my opinion, so far only JN has said he’s opting of the agreed process regarding sources, although it does mean there’s no way at present to pursue that question with JN within the Project structure and I can’t see how the moderators would be involved. The use of Finch as an article source can be dealt with in due course within the Project structure by those editors who are willing to participate (there’s no veto for those who don’t want to participate). The question we have here so far has not been identified as relevant to the Rawat project, which is a content issue specific to the Further Reading section.
Your paraphrase of my position is wrong, I’ve not written anything like “that because the guidelines are not been followed for existing sources in the 'further reading' list that are included in sources (contrary to the guidelines), then the guidelines should not be used for governance until such time as agreement for adherence in reached.” that would be a perverse position. Firstly what goes into the Further Reading section is by definition (as you appear accept in your point 4.) specifically works that are not content sources; secondly I was seeking to develop the implications of your arguments regarding not including a reference until its disputed source had been discussed - if one disputed source shouldn’t be there, then to be consistent, none should be. To advocate “no new disputed source to be used” is to hold the article to ransom under WP:JDLI As it is, no one has so far proposed using Finch as a content source, which as I’ve said should follow discussion within the Rawat Project. Even if SPS were to apply there are likely grounds of exception under WP:IAR for several Project articles.
And as far as the equivalence between a book and a website, you are making a categorisation error of the type refuted by “A cat is an animal: Not all animals are cats”. The nature of the print medium and its accompanying legal provisions such as copyright and administrative processes such as ISBN numbering, make it fundamentally different to the underlying free-for-all of the Internet. Nearly every print published work is legally attributable while the vast majority of webpages contain material that is not attributable. Web links demand a level of caution significantly beyond that required by a printed work with a named author and ISBN/ISSN identifificantion.
If other editors want to add management of Further Reading sections to the activity list of the Rawat project then it’s up to them to discuss that with the listed Project members and the moderators – currently we have here but a single argument about a single work relative to a single article and I don’t see the need to add to a list of Project work that’s already stretching out well beyond the horizon. Editors should be more than capable of defining on this talkpage why “Without The Guru” can not be included in a Further Reading section – so far no one has.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The number of non sequitur propositions about what a Further Reading section is not would seem likely to be infinite, and none of them assist progress. There is nothing in WP:SPS that prohibits inclusion of a book in a FR section, and so long as the book does not contradict the spirit of WP:BLP there can be no reason to exclude under WP:BLP. It is up to editors who don’t want the mere mention of Without The Guru on the Rawat article page, to demonstrate how the book contradicts policy and not merely to keep repeating policy short cuts. The primary requirement for FR inclusion is relevance – Finch was one of the first western devotees, he had sustained personal contact with Rawat, he was a meditation instructor, and an active participant in promoting Rawat for 30 years – there is no other publication of first person testimony that matches Without The Guru for ‘relevance’.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the book's relevance depends on whether it is on Rawat or on Finch, as there is presumably an antagonism. I have not read it, but in case it is mainly about the personal developement of Finch, and Rawat plays just a role in Finch's life drama, where Finch actually plays the main role - even if he is absent from the book's titel, it is from its intention an autobiography of Finch and can not simply be compared to a biography of the subject.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Many books that are relevant to a subject are not focussed solely on that subject, the test of relevance in terms of normal English usage is one of proportionality, not totality. In this case then, and to use Rainer P's terminology, the question becomes - "does Without The Guru proportionally deal with Prem Rawat's 'life drama'" ? to which the answer is unequivocally yes. In Finch's words "As Maharaji’s former chauffeur I was close to him personally; I lived as a renunciate in his ashrams, and was later authorized and empowered to reveal his secret teachings (the ‘Knowledge’)." [6] In any case if we are to progress with this issue, the objectors are going to have to read the book if they are to have any force to their arguments, otherwise "I haven't read it" looks like a version of "I just don't like it".--Nik Wright2 (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I wouldn’t mind reading the book if I had it, along with some reading time, it would certainly make our communication easier. (I did read Finch’s contributions on the Anti-Rawat-Forum though, and likewise Nik’s). Irrespectively my point is: Being the active webmaster of the main active Anti-Rawat-Forum, Finch is a prominent public detractor of Rawat, and a COI might be seen resulting from this, or at least doubts of neutrality. It could certainly be used as a source in an article on Mr. Finch, if it is not overly self-serving, but a strong negative essential bias has to be expected, considering Finch’s position as a leader of an apostate community. This being a BLP, the point should be dealt with in this discussion, I would like to hear other editors opinion on it.--Rainer P. (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I ask that editors who feel compelled to mention The Prem Rawat Talk Forum refer to it with it's actual name. Calling it the "Anti-Rawat-Forum" is a negative characterization and doesn't help to maintain a collaborative atmosphere here. Mike Finch is a moderator of the Prem Rawat Talk forum, not the owner nor webmaster, and since he is not an editor of this article, then there's no valid COI issues whatsoever. He wrote a memoir specifically about his life as a close follower of Prem Rawat. Editors seem to be reaching for reasons not to list Finch's book when they haven't even read it. How anyone can speculate upon something they haven't even read is puzzling, and provides no basis whatsoever for refusing its inclusion. So far, no one has provided any legitimate reasons omit Without The Guru in the "further reading" section. Frankly, this thread is starting to sound like religious censorship, and it is having Chilling effect. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"celebrity biographer"

"A biography of Rawat, Peace is Possible, authored by celebrity biographer Andrea Cagan, was published in 2006, with a foreword by Emilio Colombo, a former President of the European Parliament and former Prime Minister of Italy." I find the formulation "celebrity biographer" unnecessarily condescending and disparaging. I suggest to cut it out or substitute by a more neutral term.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's the term she uses to describe her work. See [8]   Will Beback  talk  15:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

She says she does "celebrity and civil biographies". it is not up to Will to say PIP is "celebrity".--Rainer P. (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

My work falls into three categories:

  • Celebrity biographies
  • Self-help books
  • Consulting, rewriting and editing manuscripts

After having my first book published, Awakening the Healer Within, Fireside, Simon & Schuster, 1990, I have ghost-written, co-written, edited and collaborated on a variety of celebrity and civilian biographies as well as self-help and psychological books. In choosing my projects, I search for material with social value, generally laced with a healthy sense of humor. I've built up an impressive client list including some of the most interesting personalities in the world. See the "What I've Done" section.

So maybe "a writer of celebrity biographies and self-help books" would be closer to the source.   Will Beback  talk  21:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but why omit the "civilian biographies" and the "psychological books", which are also terms she uses? It creates a certain bias. I also understand, that it is maybe not such an important issue and does not deserve too much space. So for neutrality "biographer" should suffice.--Rainer P. (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
"Writer" is even more compact. In fact, we don't really need any job-title.   Will Beback  talk  23:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Name alone will do, particularly as it is textlinked. Will you change it?--Rainer P. (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Done.[9]   Will Beback  talk  10:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Footnote 102 seems a bit laconic to me, when the book has not been mentioned before, has it? It appears in detail only in the bibliography, hard to find for an average reader.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Why is that Cagan paragraph even in the article, sourced by her own book? Seems weird to me. The book should be in Further Reading and not in the article as it's not an official, authorized biography. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the idea is that the publication of the biography is a notable event in the subject's life. I suppoose that if there were reporting on the Finch book it could be mentioned in a like manner.   Will Beback  talk  18:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Footnote replenished.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Followers

If there are no objections, I would like to reintroduce this paragraph:

Ron Geaves (2006) writes that Rawat "retains a significant following in the United States," even if its numerical strength has diminished. National events in the United States attract an audience of around 5,000 to 6,000, although Geaves allows that some of these may be visitors from South America and Europe. A core group of around 2,000 European and North American disciples travel to attend as many of Rawat's live events around the world as they can. Beyond these long-standing students, a new generation of students has been drawn to Rawat through satellite TV programs, DVDs and the Internet; Geaves suggests that the affective ties these more recent students have to Rawat – and to each other – will likely be different from the former pattern of very close-knit groups of devoted disciples.<ref name="Geaves2006b74">Geaves (2006b), p. 74</ref> --JN466 14:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Why? We already have a paragraph on the size of the following.   Will Beback  talk  18:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you think the above paragraph duplicates any of the information we currently have? --JN466 18:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
We could insert a hundred more pages worth of text that wouldn't duplicate anything, but that doesn't answer the question of "why?".   Will Beback  talk  20:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Because it gives an overview of the present-day status of the following. That is essential information currently missing. --JN466 13:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Why ? has been a seriously underused question in the editing of this article, so I'd also like to see an answer this case. In any event Geaves is plainly an interested party and some evidence of his source of data, and ideally other confirming RS should be included; the final sentence is just Geaves' specualtion - is there any evidence that these 'recent students' actually exist ? The Rawat organisations have never published recruitment numbers, only percentage 'increases' relative to The Keys participation. Even those percentage figures are dubious because they do not distinguish between new recruits and those existing followers viewing The Keys DVD's as a "Knowledge Review". I can't see how this Geaves material is anything more than self serving marketing material. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Geaves is a RS. Given that we mention numbers for viewers of "the Keys", it is relevant to point out that these followers do not conform to the former pattern of movement membership. As to attendance figures, even ex-followers who can hardly be accused of wanting to advertise for Rawat speak of 4,000 to 5,000 attending the national event in Miami in 2002, and 7,000 to 8,000 attending a similar program in the 1990s. While these are not reliable sources, if there were really reason to suspect Geaves of falsifying his data, I would have expected a discrepancy there, and there isn't one. --JN466 13:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Back in 2006, Elan Vital published its statistics by saying: The generosity of over 1,964 U.S. contributors helps support Maharaji's work. See Statistics If you're saying that Geaves's article claims 6,000 current U.S. adherents, he's wrong, and I'll eat my snow shoes if he's right(which I've got out and am ready to use here in Vermont!) :) Besides, you ought to know that this NRM is notorious for counting heads at programs by multiplying attendees x the number of days of an event, and it includes one-time guests -- which triples the number of attendees but provides no accurate statistic. Crickey, Rawat has been bragging lately that he can fill a baseball stadium in Cuba of all places, so I think Geaves's numbers should be ignored as patently inaccurate and self-serving for his master and guru. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
As linked above, John Brauns wrote not too long ago, and I quote, "We know that 4-5000 attended Miami this year." So we have matching published and unpublished evidence on attendance figures at Rawat events, from diametrically opposite ends of the spectrum of opinion on Rawat, and you're still claiming these figures are wrong??? --JN466 17:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Gvien the context of the existing material, I think we could cover this by something like, "Geaves estimated in 2006 a core group of around 2,000 European and North American disciples".   Will Beback  talk  17:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe what I wrote above is a correct and informative summary of the source. --JN466 17:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
What is the need for the additional info? We have many possible sources, so to devote an entire paragraph to one source seems like excess weight.   Will Beback  talk  02:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
We have a whole paragraph from Downton, and nothing at all from Geaves. Generally, we have very little post-1990 data. Given the number of articles Geaves has published on the movement in peer-reviewed journals and standard academic reference works over the last ten years, it is WP:DUE to include what he has to say about it. --JN466 08:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I've reinserted the paragraph. Any further discussion please on the mediation/project page. --JN466 08:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    • There's no consensus for that. Please wait until there is one to re-add the material.   Will Beback  talk  09:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I've reverted Jayen's edit. Although I am willing to be persuaded Geaves can be used as a source in some instances, Geaves claim of a 'new generation of students' is unsourced and extremely suspect. Anecdotal evidence is that only a handful of people graduate through the 'Keys' process, and there is no evidence that even those remain followers. If Rawat's organisations do not publish actual numbers of supporters, and new students, then where has Geaves got this information? --John Brauns (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Geaves is by far the most knowledgeable scholar on the subject of Prem Rawat, and he is a reliable source in himself, making first-hand observations, like the ones JN mentioned. I see no need to verify with less valid sources.--Rainer P. (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I am afraid you will not find much support for using anecdotal evidence in Wikipedia policy, John. Geaves is a reliable on-topic source that does not require further corroboration.
Also please consider that if more than a quarter of a million people have gone through all the steps of Rawat's Keys program, then at least a few of these will have gone on to practice the methods. The program is available in dozens of languages; do you really mean to tell me that they go to all this trouble to attract exactly no one? Even if you assume it is just a business, it would not exactly make business sense. --JN466 15:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Just for reference, the source I am citing is this: [10] It is a well-regarded scholarly reference work, by a top academic publisher, that meets all the WP requirements for reliable sources. --JN466 15:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not arguing for any anecdotal sources to be used for the article, just that Geaves, as a follower of Rawat for 40 years, should be used, if at all, with caution. From the discussion on the project page, there is clearly no consensus amongst editors here that Geaves is a reliable source. Serious scholars give sources for the claims they make - has Geaves sourced his claim of a 'new generation of students'? And where could he have possibly acquired the information? The only possible source is Elan Vital's database of people who have been through the Keys process, and, via the use of the 'smart card', their database of attendees at Rawat's speaking events. Does Geaves have access to this information? If so, why doesn't he declare this? I don't know the where the source you mention gets the figure of 250,000 people going through the Keys process. What is the exact quote? And who wrote the section on Elan Vital in that book? Also, there is no way of measuring what proportion of new students continue to practice the meditation, but as Rawat himself asks new students to attend his speaking engagements then such attendance numbers are the best measure. It's a pity Elan Vital does not release that information. Anyway, I suggest we hold off on using Geaves as a source for any further content until we resume, and complete, the discussion on the project page. Do other editors agree? --John Brauns (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
All sources should then be used with caution, if at all, as long as their religious or ideological background is not evaluated. There will be a lot of work coming over us. I think, being a follower of the subject rather gives Geaves an edge (like with the information discussed above) over, say, a christian or atheistic author. Geaves knows his subject-matter thoroughly from both sides.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The notion that we should disregard a book published by a top-class, religiously neutral academic publisher because an editor does not like the author's religious affiliation has no support in Wikipedia policy. I can't possibly see how that is supposed to be WP:NPOV. --JN466 17:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
If you need evidence of a new generation of Rawat students, congregating via the Internet, have a look at sites like these:
I am happy to move discussion to the project page. --JN466 16:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
You haven't responded to the question for you there.   Will Beback  talk  22:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't doubt that there are new followers. I just think that in a section devoted to the number of personal followers Rawat has, we should keep it limited. This article is not about teaching Knowledge, or about "The Keys". If we're going to insert a big chunk of text on how Knwledge is propagated in the 2000s then we should certainly have even more text about how it was propagated in the 1970s, back when there were many new practitioners. Instead, I think we should keep it short and to the point.   Will Beback  talk  19:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Will, what I wrote above is short and to the point. It is just the basic information on the present state of his movement. As for new students, the "The Keys" website reports more than 365,000 new practitioners over a period of 8 years starting May 2000, with Key Six sessions held in 621 cities in 67 countries. While movement participation and social organisation may not follow the former patterns, and these people may lead more independent lifestyles, they still represent a lot of people who consider Rawat to be an inspiration to them. JN466 22:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
While self-published sources may be used for non-controversial claims, I don't think this qualifies as one so I'm not sure if the Keys website is relevant. When you say "short and to the point" - what is the point? The text I suggested is even shorter and more to the point, which is the size of Rawat's following. Information on the Keys would probalby be more appropriate in the "Teachings" article, since it is a teaching medium.   Will Beback  talk  22:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The information as presented above, at the top of this thread, is relevant, pertinent, and reliably published. The point is that national events in the United States attract an audience of around 5,000 to 6,000, as we have been able to verify, that a core group of around 2,000 European and North American students travel to attend as many of Rawat's live events around the world as they can, that there is a new generation of students drawn to Rawat through satellite TV programs, DVDs and the Internet, also verifiable, and that these more recent students, coming to Rawat through the Internet and mail-order DVDs, likely have a different relationship to him and to each other than the disciples of old. That is the sort of information an encyclopedia article should provide: an overview of the current state of his movement, and some clues as to its sociological make-up. What would interest me as well is which countries the movement experiences most growth in. JN466 01:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
This is his biography. We have at least two articles on aspects of his movement, pl;us the article on his teachings. Furthermore, if we add material on his following in the 2000 then we should add even more material on his following in the 1970s, '80s, and '90s. Otherwise we're overemphasizing recent activity. I don't see that as a productive direction for this article. But maybe you can convince the other editors.   Will Beback  talk  01:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I don’t quite see how “his following in the 1970s, '80s, and '90s” matters more than present and recent activities. The reader may be interested in whether this is a historic item from the seventies, a “dying cult”, as detractors chose to portray it, or whether the movement is alive and kicking. To me (OR alright) it seems, Rawat is more active than ever before, with the best yet to come, and through adoption of state-of-the-art telecommunication the movement has evolved away from last century’s categories, like numbers of participants at international events. You can attend those on your living room couch for free, if you care. Events are to some extent being used for the production of didactic material for up to date forms of propagation, that’s what Rawat stated recently at an event in Las Vegas. Neglecting these developments appear intentionally misleading to me in respect of simple relevance.--Rainer P. (talk) 07:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Rainer, it doesn't matter whether readers are interested in Rawat's recent activity, if there are no reliable sources for that activity then we can't include it in Wikipedia. The only sources you have for your view of Rawat's use of 'state-of-the-art telecommunication' are Rawat's organisations and his followers. Geaves, as a loyal follower for 40 years, is not, IMO, a reliable source, and there is a discussion on the project page about this. Please join in that discussion to help us reach consensus before making edits using Geaves as source. --John Brauns (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
If Geaves is good enough for peer reviewers, he is certainly good enough for WP, anything else could be rated as intolerance. The more so, as the data situation is meager; Geaves's position as an insider allows him insights perhaps barred to others. No need to wait until inferior sources agree with him. I guess I'm repeating myself.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Rainer, are you not concerned that Geaves, as a loyal follower, as well as having inside knowledge (an unverifiable claim), he could be deliberately embellishing the truth, or even plain old-fashioned lying (he does this in the Passages video)? He could even have direct instructions from Rawat to do this. The problem is that his allegiance to Rawat means we simply do not know. If he did have inside knowledge then don't you think that as a reputable scholar he should have listed his sources? --John Brauns (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

In the interest of compromise, here is a proposed, shorter version:

Ron Geaves (2006) writes that Rawat retains a reduced, but still significant following in the U.S., with large national events attracting an audience of 5,000 to 6,000, including overseas visitors. A core group of around 2,000 European and North American disciples travel to attend as many of Rawat's live events around the world as they can. Apart from these longstanding followers, new students have been attracted through satellite TV, DVDs and the Internet, although Geaves suggests they form a less closely-knit group than in the movement's early years.

The current "Following" section has 293 words. The above proposal adds 88, representing less than a quarter of the resulting section. I don't think that is unreasonable. --JN466 15:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks alright to me.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
All the information contained in the proposed edit above we can and have verified ourselves here on this page from our armchairs. JN466 16:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Here another piece of anecdotal evidence as to the existence of new premies who have gone through the Keys process: [14] Again, this is backing up a reliable source with an unreliable source, a forum post. But it is a forum post by Mike Finch, whose self-published book editors wanted to add here. --JN466 17:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Anecdotal evidence is not RS, it's not even worth looking at the link. You know that. -- Maelefique (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
It is only relevant to the extent that editors' claims here – i.e. that this reliably published scholar is "lying" with his attendance figures and his statement that new students have been attracted to the movement through DVDs etc. – simply don't appear credible in light of such posts. Otherwise I fully agree with you: there is no need to drag out posts from forums to back up a reliably published source. --JN466 17:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
We are not in agreement about Geaves, we are only in agreement that a non-RS source is not useful. Also, reading the link you provide below, it says there's a core group of about 2000 people that attend events, it does not say there is 5-6000 people that attend events, with a 2000 strong core group from Europe and the USA. Further, it talks about his audience through television, I think you would be hard-pressed to argue that anyone that watches a television program is a student of PR. And still, unless Geaves wants to provide a source for his numbers, since that's not his field of study and he hasn't provided any basis for these estimates, I don't see how he's RS for these numbers. -- Maelefique (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
That part is on page 64: [15] Your asking for a source has no basis in WP policy. Geaves is a source. And he is roundly backed up even by the ex-premies themselves. --JN466 18:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
So now ex-premies are a reliable back-up for claims? Really, you wanna add that? Really really?? Also, I agree Geaves is *a* source, I'm just not convinced that for this information he's an RS source. -- Maelefique (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
If you have other sources offering different presentations, we can include them too. In the absence of such sources, per WP:NPOV we have to include Geaves: it is a significant view, published in a top-class source. The silly thing about this argument is, nobody really contests the information, do they? Or are you trying to say that you think Mike Finch and John Brauns are telling the same lies as Geaves? --JN466 18:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
The page from Geaves' chapter in Gallagher/Ashcraft that this is sourced to is here: [16] --JN466 17:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, if we're going to say that Rawat uses DVDs and satellites to convey his teachings in the 2000s, then we should also say that he used mahatmas and festivals to convey his teachings in the 1970s. As for the "reduced" following, reduced from when? 2,000 is certainly a reduction from 6 million. I should mention that Geaves assertion that "no membership lists are maintained" seems contradicted by other sources. There are many sources that refer to the lease of an expensive IBM computer int he 1970s just for that purpose, and it's known that the movement now issues ID cards to "people with Knowledge". While that isn't in Jayen's draft, it makes Geaves' other assertions less authoritative. I suggest we just add Geaves' estimate of membership and leave it at that. At the end of the section we already refer to the The Keys. We can use Geaves to supplement that to clarify that The Keys are a DVD course.   Will Beback  talk  18:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Will, you are writing as though there were no mention of the Mahatmas and festivals in the article. In fact, these are all quotes from the current article:
  • "in 1969 he sent one of his closest Indian students (known as Mahatmas) to London to teach on his behalf."
  • "first western address was given in June 1971 at the first Glastonbury Fayre"
  • "The 1972 Hans Jayanti, an annual festival celebrating Rawat's father's birthday,[39] was attended by over 500,000 people. Six Jumbo jets were chartered by American followers"
  • "The Hans Jayanti of 1973, which was named "Millennium '73", was held in the Houston Astrodome."
  • "His appearance on 20 December 1976 in Atlantic City, New Jersey, wearing a traditional Krishna costume"
  • "flying to speaking engagements in major cities around the world almost continually"
  • "Most of the mahatmas either returned to India or were dismissed."
  • "financed travel for the close officials and mahatmas who accompanied him on his frequent trips around the globe to attend the Mission's festivals"
If you are saying a mention of the mahatmas and festivals is a precondition for mentioning the DVDs, that precondition is fulfilled already. JN466 19:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
None of those explain that those are the ways in which the subject conveyed his teachings, which seems like an oversight. The role of the mahatmas is never explained, nor are other details of initiation. However since we havce an entire article on the subject's teachings I'm happy to leave that topic to that article. Whatever we do we should maintain a balance that reflects the relative notability of the different periods of the subject's life. We have dozens of scholarly sources for his life in the '70s and '80s, and a small handful for the 2000s. That's an indication that the 2000s deserve less weight than the '70s. If an actor was in blockbuster movies in the 1970s and community theater in the 2000s, we would not devote equal space to each part of his life. For this section on Rawat's following, we have a paragraph on the relative size over the years. Let's just add the most recent estimate without making a big production out of it.   Will Beback  talk  19:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it’s o.k. to mention that he used Indian born “mahatmas” (with some additional explaining, I agree with Will)) and festivals in the beginning of his global mission in the seventies, and to point out that he has been changing this consequently in accordance with the relative state-of-the-art technology, as formulated by JN. And: A student is not necessarily a person after receiving the initiation, but anybody who tries to learn from him. Those tv-lectures are not just entertainment. And Geaves is ridiculously overqualified as a source for just clarifying that the Keys are a DVD-course.--Rainer P. (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Geaves is qualified to opine on many topics, but this article is only concerned with the life of Prem Rawat. Rawat's teachings are covered in another article.   Will Beback  talk  19:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Is anyone here listening to me??? I have proposed that we continue the discussion on the project page regarding if and how we should use Geaves as a source. If we can come up with a consensus agreement (even compromise!) there, then discussions such as this could be settled much more easily. Otherwise we will go around the same circles discussing each edit sourced to Geaves. Is anyone willing to attempt this???? --John Brauns (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the general matter of Geaves as a source applies to all the article in this topic and should be discussed on the project page.   Will Beback  talk  19:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Shorter version, as a compromise:

Ron Geaves (2006) writes that Rawat attracts an audience of 5,000 to 6,000, including overseas visitors, with a core group of around 2,000 European and North American disciples.

Would that be acceptable?   Will Beback  talk  16:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


There’s a problem with the use of a ‘continuing tense’ in respect of figures that cannot be certainly projected forward, and there’s also a problem in that Geaves does not make a link between the 5,000 – 6,000 figure and the 2,000 figure. I’d prefer a construction that runs

Geaves, in a 2006 publication, provides an unsupported statement that in the US, Rawat attracted audiences of 5,000 – 6,000 which included oversees visitors; Geaves also gives a figure of 2,000 for Rawat’s core following in the US.

The lack of supporting data/attribution is notable because Geaves does provide a reference list, but nothing to cover these very specific figures.

To avoid any further mischaracterisation by other editor’s of my position regarding Geaves; I don’t consider Geaves totally unusable but rather, that any use should be specifically attributed to him. As regards this particular issue – I remain dubious as to the notability of anything about Rawat post 1983, however I note Will’s clear arguments on the article talk page about the ‘balance’ of relative text volumes in the chronologically arranged treatment of ‘fading star’ subjects. On that basis I’d accept an edit as per the above – but that edit should still be subject to any conclusions to further discussion of all Geaves writings as they pertain to all the Rawat Project articles. If there is no consensus for this compromise approach then this discussion should end here and be taken up on the Rawat project page - I suggest 24hours from this signing as a deadline - --Nik Wright2 (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Longer version, but not as long as it was, as a compromise: ;)

Ron Geaves (2006) writes that Rawat's national events in the United States are attended by around 5,000 to 6,000 people, which may include overseas visitors, and that there is a core group of around 2,000 European and North American disciples who travel to as many of his international events as they can.

I see no need to qualify the 5,000 to 6,000 number as an unsupported statement; we don't do this for other sources either, and the figures actually match those given on various online forums of both current and former students. The location is important; events in India attract far greater crowds. --JN466 01:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, what does the extra text offer versus the version I proposed? Folks travelled in the past, so I don't see how this is specific to the 2000s. I agree that "unsupported" isn't needed in this context.   Will Beback  talk  02:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Two things:
(1) It adds location. Your version above went "writes that Rawat attracts an audience of 5,000 to 6,000, including overseas visitors". It does not mention the United States at all. In the source, the 5,000 to 6,000 figure explicitly applies to national events in the US. This is crucial. I understand Rawat's events in India (and possible elsewhere) attract far, far greater crowds. Do you accept this point?
(2) It says how Geaves defines the core group, what he means by it when he says it. He defines it by their travel habit, not any other criteria such as active financial contributions to movement funds (for which numbers across North America and Europe would likely be greater), volunteer work involvement, organised proselytising efforts, etc. Does this make sense?
Thanks for agreeing that "unsupported" is unnecessary. I've tweaked the text. --JN466 08:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer to resolve if and how we use Geaves as a source before discussing individual changes, but as the consensus appears to be to add something regarding recent following, I feel I should contribute. The reason we are having this debate is that Elan Vital do not release any information regarding numbers receiving Knowledge, numbers of Smart Card holders, or attendance at Rawat's speaking engagements. This, combined with the almost total lack of recent interest in Rawat from reputable publications and scholars, means that we either include nothing on this subject in the article, or we use Geaves. If the consensus is to use Geaves I would prefer that we qualify the text to include the lack of reliable figures. Something like "Although the organisations that support Rawat's work issue no membership or attendance figures, according to scholar and long-time follower, Ron Geaves, ......" What do other editors think? --John Brauns (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The only thing to conclude at this point is that there is no consensus on what text to use relative to Geaves Gallagher/Ashcroft article - the only choices therefore are to return to discussion at the Project page or if an involved editor wants to - seek to reinvoke mediation - though given that any mediation would involve the same discussion required at the Project page, mediation at this stage would seem somewhat redundant. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
(1) Your sentence about them not releasing figures is original research, and not entirely accurate either. For example, they have released numbers on people completing the Keys programme, and we have quoted them. (2) They also give attendance figures for big events in blogs and press releases, e.g. an overflow crowd of more than 4,600 at an event in Shah Alam, Malaysia,an audience of more than 5,700 in Salamanca, Spain, an audience of more than 100,000 in Mehrauli, near New Delhi. (3) I am sure any figures they release, you'll likely tell me they are lying. ;) We cannot speculate about that; we simply say these are the figures they release. Caveat emptor. (4) I know from your site that you basically agree with Geaves' figures, so why is this such a problem? (5) Geaves himself has attended many of these events; it is possible to estimate the size of a crowd from the seating arrangements.
Just as a general note, I would like to point out that we are short-changing readers of all colours by trying to minimise Rawat's present ability to attract followers, and not mentioning present-day recruitment techniques. I still see no good reason not to mention that satellite TV, DVDs and Internet are the main vectors of recruitment these days. --JN466 14:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) Presenting properly sourced information short-changes no one. I might well be less temperate than others in decrying use of an article for apparent advocacy of any type. Will is on absolutely solid ground here. Collect (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing Non-Independent Sources

I removed several citations from non-independent sources such as The Prem Rawat Foundation website and Prem Rawat press releases, as these are clearly out of bounds on Wikipedia (particularly for a biography of a living person), per WP:RS, WP:THIRDPARTY and WP:BLP. --Gotophilk (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This content, with the sources you deleted, has stood for a very long time. Note that self-published sources are permitted in articles about themselves, per WP:SELFPUB. Another thing is that these articles are subject to special sanctions by the arbitration committee, due to a past history of conflict and edit warring. No editor is allowed to make the same edit twice within seven days, as you have just done. I know this may sound extraordinary, but that is the current status: See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Prem_Rawat_2#Revert_limitations Please self-revert. --JN466 23:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Note that the editing restriction is also mentioned near the top of this talk page, in one of the orange boxes. Please self-revert. --JN466 23:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
First of all, I apologize, as I'm not familiar with the arbitration process. I did read the editing restriction, which directed me to "read relevant talk page discussions below before making substantial changes". The discussions below did not address the edit I wanted to make, which I didn't realize was controversial.
To that point, the first rule for self-published sources that you linked is that "material is not unduly self-serving". Several of the sources in question refer to Rawat's popularity and the size of his following. Arguably, that's self-serving material. Has a consensus been reached about using these specific sources to support these claims? Is there some space in the arbitration process for such a discussion? --Gotophilk (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
JN why did you revert Gotophilk's edit without any attempt to explain why you believed the edit was wrong ? Your behaviour looks like an attempt at edit war and the entrapment of a new editor. Gotophilk has a valid point and your assertions are just your assessment of what counts as SP - an argument that you lost re:Cagan. In any case Gotophilk appears to be protected by the provisions of BLP. And the answer to Gotophilk's question is that "No a consensus has not been reached regarding the websites that were cited" - TPRF is not in the ownership or control of Prem Rawat which was why it was removed some time ago from the external links section. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I was unconvinced by the edit summary rationale: "Removing non-reliable sources per WP:RS and WP:THIRDPARTY". tprf.org is a reliable source for the statements of the Prem Rawat Foundation, and WP:THIRDPARTY is an essay, not a guideline. Besides, it was quite a big undiscussed change. --JN466 14:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
As for your questions about any prior consensus, I can't recall any recent controversy on these talk pages surrounding the use of these primary sources. I am happy to discuss the individual citations on a case-by-case basis so we can come to a consensus as to which ones might be unduly self-serving; where we agree that a use is unduly self-serving, we can try to identify alternative sources, and if we can't find any, then the material cited to the SPS should go. --JN466 14:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The beginning of this article isn't clear on what exactly Prem Rawat's role is- shouldn't the first sentence be something like, "Prem Rawat is an Indian religious leader", or something to that effect? The "is" followed by a role, title, etc. seems to be standard. 76.253.140.190 (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

That's been a contentious issue. Some editors disagree that he is a religious leader. The current verb is "teaches". We could say "is a teacher of" instead, but that adds words without adding any more information.   Will Beback  talk  10:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional sentence

Hello, Wiki-colleagues. I have been busy and not read this page for long, and I have been reading the article as it is now. I am happy to see there are more objective facts and less opinions, which as I see it is as it should be. Congratulations and thanks to all those who contribute in this article.

Since for most people value number one is money, I have a suggestion for an addition to the text, to explain why Prem Rawat and other masters accept material donations that are not directly connected to covering propagation costs.

The sentence after which I suggest an addition is in section "1970-1973", at the end, in the issue of material gifts, after following sentence, which by the way gives an argument difficult to accept or understand for those who do not know so much yoga. "They saw Rawat's lifestyle as an example of a lila, or divine play, which held a mirror to the "money-crazed and contraption-collecting society" of the West"

My suggestion for an additional sentence could read:

"Others argue that an old yoga tradition says that a master cannot but accept whatever is offered to him with love, even if he personally does not like it so much".

This is easier for everyone to understand without knowing yoga, it is also true for all of us, not only for masters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PremieLover (talk • contribs) 23:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Which source says that?   Will Beback  talk  23:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Which sources say nobody likes a gift rejected because the receiver does not like it so much as the giver? Common sense. I have read yoga books along 40 years, I cannot remember in which one I read it. I know, no source, no inclusion. Thanks.--PremieLover (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but yes, we need a specific source. If it's only common sense then there's no need to say it. Also, a second point is that we don't ever mention the word "yoga" in the article. Even if we found a source that says yoga masters don't decline gifts, we'd still need it or another source to say that the subject is or was a yoga master. That might not be hard to find, but we'd need something like it to make the connection.   Will Beback  talk  00:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, the article does not say it, but his father was called, among others, with the title of "Yogiraj", which means King of the Yogis. They did not call him this for nothing. This is not in his father's Wiki article, but perhaps it should be. No problem to find a source for this. Anyone who has read enough yoga knows the connection between Prem Rawat and his father, yoga, Yogananda, etc. etc.--PremieLover (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Pilots licence

This sentance had a citation request next to it for the last seven months.

Prem Rawat holds an Airline Transport Pilot License and has type ratings for a number of multi-engined aircraft and helicopters.[citation needed]

I have moved it here to see if the request for a citation gets any response. Weakopedia (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

sorry

i not disscuss to feel because i not no english ,but i meet to you ,why on india —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.137.24 (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Lede

Can any one explain why this sentence is in the lede "Though he originally aspired to bring about 'world peace', the idea being that peace would come to the world as individuals experienced inner peace, he now places his attention on helping individuals, which according to him takes priority over 'societal aims'.[13][14]". The idea of "world peace" or "societal aims" isn't referred to in the body of the article, so why is it in the lede? In fact the "Teachings" section says "The major focus of Maharaji is on stillness, peace, and contentment within the individual", nothing about "world peace" or "societal aims". If you go to the "Teachings of Prem Rawat" article there is nothing about "world peace" or "societal aims".Momento (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't use other Wikipedia articles as sources. That sentence has two sources. It was discussed, in part, at Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 41#Semi-quote from Aldridge and again at Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 41#Aldridge citationOne version of it was added by user:Pergamino, Jossi's sock.[17]   Will Beback  talk  14:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you, Rumiton and Zanthorp that it has no place in the lead. I wonder where I was at the time?
You were right here. Your "last edit" was to that sentence.[18] It's just the way you left it. Seeing how much effort we've expended on the intro, and how nicely stable it's been for the last year, I am reluctant to support any changes unless there's a very good reason.   Will Beback  talk  22:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes, I remember now. I couldn't get agreement to remove it, so I added Blau's qualifier. I think you agree with me that it shouldn't be there for a variety of reasons including "exceptional claims" and "undue weight". If its wrong it should go.Momento (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see you having made any effort to get agreement to remove it. When was that? The burden of proof is on you if you're going to assert that it's an exceptional claim and undue weight. It's been there a year with no complaints.   Will Beback  talk  22:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, I was busy else where. I put the qualifier in because the offending claim wasn't being removed despite it's "undue weight" and "exceptional claim". In the end the whole sentence was removed by you as per talk page discussion [19] and remained out for months until Steven Zhang unilaterally reverted 90 edits and put it in. The sentence was discussed at length, removed with consensus and re-inserted by unilateral mass revert. I hope you don't think that because the article has been stable for a year it can't be improved as this absurd sentence demonstrates.Momento (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
There are two issues: should the sentence be in the lede, and should it be in the article. I don't think it needs to be in the lede, but I don't see why it shouldn't be in the article. Those are just my opinions, and any significant change should get a consensus first. If you want to assert that it's an exceptional claim or undue weight then you'll need to prove it.   Will Beback  talk  03:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me enough has been said about this little piece of non-information (see links above, previous discussions), and there had even been an agreement to delete it, only to have it reappear mysteriously, like herpes. Starting the whole discussion all over again feels foolish to me. If there is a "political" will to have it in the article or in the lead, for whatever reason, this feels like sham discussion. I have not targeted the issue for a year because it seems a minor item to me, but there was never an agreement on having it anywhere, especially not in the lede. It is probably the weakest point of the article, and, one should think, comparatively easy to correct, and consequentially should be dealt with first.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

In answer to Momento's original question, "Why is it there, when these things aren't in the article?", it's there because it is a brief and accurate synopsis of the shift in Rawat's philosophy over time. World peace is mentioned in the article several times, although not specifically as "world peace", there are references to the Peace Bomb (which if we want to change things, I would like to see expanded, casual readers may want to know what that is, since it is not explained at all), Millenium '73 and it's 1000 yrs of peace, and how "Followers stressed "love, peace and happiness" in their lives, but public attitudes were often unsympathetic", as well as a few other references. In terms of "societal aims" that's a bit more nebulous to pin down to specific sentences, but I think it ties in nicely with world peace. For someone who wants the 15 second low-down on PR, I think this sentence is relevant and fairly succinctly summarizes its point, I would have to say I would like it to stay, unless some additional reasons can be given. -- Maelefique (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

As you say Maelefique "world peace" is not mentioned in the article, nor is "societal aims", so how can it be in the Lede. When the sentence was originally inserted by a sock puppet, the consensus was to remove it and indeed it was removed and it remained removed until it was re-inserted as part of an undiscussed mass revert of 91 edits by Steve Zhang. So you have made it clear why it should be removed and the reason you give to keep it, that you "think it ties in nicely with world peace", is irrelevant. I cannot think of any possible reason why the principles of consensus, article structure, undue weight, BLP and exceptional claims should be over turned for this sentence and unless a new Wiki policy turns up in the next 24 hours, I will take steps to remove it.Momento (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
You keep asserting undue weeight and exceptional claim, but haven't made any effort to substantiate those assertions. Please don't make any significant changes to the article without consensus.   Will Beback  talk  21:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec) My reason for keeping it is because, as I already stated, it is "a brief and accurate synopsis of the shift in Rawat's philosophy over time", not as you mis-represented it above. I don't fully understand your logic behind claiming "principles of consensus, article structure, undue weight, BLP and exceptional claims" as reasons for its removal. If you would like to explain each in detail, I would definitely weigh those arguments against my position as it stands currently (and I will say in advance, that a previous consensus does not equal a current consensus, and regarding its relevance, it makes very little difference if the statement was made by a sock or not). If you remove the statement, as you claim above, without getting consensus, I will immediately revert. -- Maelefique (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The consensus to remove it has already been established and the unilateral revert of 91 edits doesn't take precedence over consensus. There is no consensus to insert it. The undue weight is so obvious I'm embarrassed I have to describe it. It is "undue weight" because Alridge's claim is unique. Every other authority notes that Rawat's emphasis has always been on "an individual subjective experience" and the experience of Knowledge as "internal and highly individual". Alridge's suggestion that Rawat 'now' places his attention on helping 'individuals' is laughable. He's never done anything else. Alridge's claim that "according to Rawat helping 'individuals' (now) takes priority over societal aims" is breath taking. Every authority on Rawat refers to the origins of his teaching as being from the "North Indian Sants, who emphasise the possibility of a 'direct experience of God'". "World peace", "societal aims"?!?! It's a parody of Rawat's teaching and activities for 40+ years and the work of dozens of scholars and thousands of public statements. It doesn't belong in any article about Rawat because it is the POV of one solitary author. That's "undue weight". And it's not just "undue weight" in being a POV of one, it is "undue weight" in structure with its "prominence of placement" in the Lede. Do I need to explain why it's an "exceptional claim"? Apparently. It's an "exceptional claim" because Alridge's theory is a "surprising or apparently important claim not covered by mainstream sources". It is "statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended", that "according to Rawat helping individuals' (now) takes priority over 'societal aims". Rawat, as every scholar makes clear, has always put the "individual" first. It is a claim that is "contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in a biography of a living person". You've already taken it out before Will, following consensus to do so, I suggest you take it out again, Maelefique's preference for having it in is dead and buried under a mass of Wiki policies and guidelines. Then anyone who likes can argue to have it put into the article and that is obviously a futile task.22:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Current consensus is what matters, not some discussion from a year ago. Here are sources discussing the subject and the topic of world peace:

  • The Guru or "Perfect Master" to whom these five say they have devoted their lives, is the 15-year-old East Indian youth who began a "World Peace Tour" in late 1970.
  • Maharaj Ji was here on his third global tour aimed at bringing world peace by bringing "inner peace through spiritual knowledge."
  • The second day of the assembly is called "The Messiah is here" and the third day will be devoted to "A World Assemblage to Save Humanity" when the guru will outline "a practical program for world peace."
  • "This knowledge is very far out," he said. "If you can't find it anywhere else, I can give you peace." The guru claims to have a practical plan to achieve world peace. This plan will be 'fully revealed" during the coming year, a spokesman for the Divine Light Mission, the organization of the guru's followers, said Saturday. [..] "Maharaj Ji has a practical plan to bring about world peace by providing the necessities of food, clothing and shelter along with the Knowledge," he said. Lentini said he respects Rennie Davis for joining Divine Light.
  • "This is just-warming trip," says president Mishler, who declares that World, peace, is "inevitable."
  • He is Guru Maharaj Ji, the 15- year-old from India who promises to reveal God and achieve world peace.
  • Guru Maharaj Ji's Divine United Organization proclamation is read, followed by a formal call to humanity to join in the New Age by all practical means, giving generous support to Maharaj Ji's program for world peace.

And so on. Aldridge is a reliable source. Many other sources, especially those from the early 1970s, reference a program for world peace.   Will Beback  talk  23:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think this (the edit that established the current version) was a good, workable compromise. Guys, we are all one year older. Are we also one year wiser? I'd suggest that the article as it stands, here and now, is a decent article. It is about as good as we can get it, as a group. It's been remarkably stable for a year. Haven't we all got better things to do than meet here on a daily basis to argue about minutiae, trying to pull the article an iota in this direction, or the other? --JN466 23:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I've only seen one person in this discussion that disagrees with you. -- Maelefique (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
According to Wiki -"The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article". How can a theory that is not even discussed in the article be placed in the Lede as an "important aspect"? If you want to follow Wiki guidelines it can't. You're welcome to debate whether this unique theory that Rawat only decided to give peace to "individuals" after he gave up on "world peace" should appear in the article. But it's such a minor theory it would be undue weight to include it. Apparently some editors want to continue with the idea that Prem Rawat articles don't need to follow the policies and guidelines that apply to other articles. It's simple, stop fighting me and ask yourself "Should a theory of one scholar that is not addressed in the article be placed in the Lede?" Momento (talk) 03:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
At the risk of stating what I assumed was obvious, it doesn't matter whether Alridge is a "reliable source", no one's ever said otherwise, and no one cares. And it doesn't matter who else has talked about "World Peace". The only thing that counts is whether this fringe theory that is so minor that it is not even in the article should be in the Lede of the article. If we go to a RFC you won't find a single uninvolved editor who will agree with putting this sentence in the Lede.Momento (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Hang on Momento, it doesn't suggest Rawat 'gave up on World Peace' it says that giving individuals peace is a higher priority for him than that goal. I think that the fact that Rawat and his mission initially put so much emphasis on "World Peace" makes it appropriate to include here some form of explanation for the lack of reference to "establishing World Peace" in Rawat's more recent speeches, in contrast to his current, frequent emphasis on peace on a more individual level. Frankly your arguments have always been about trying to exclude information form this article by means of arguing that they are 'minor' or 'fringe' opinions and they're obviously always things that you think detract from PR. It was very transparent and tiresome a year ago and it's undoubtedly going to be very transparent and tiresome if you embark on this line of argument again. PatW (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion but the question is "How can a sentence be "a summary of important aspects of the subject of the article" when it doesn't refer to anything in the article. I look forward to your answer. Let's hope WillBeback can bring himself to repeat his opinion " I don't think it needs to be in the lede".Momento (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something but the lack of mention of Prem Rawats most famous 'Peace Bomb' satsang where he said "I declare I will establish peace in this world" is bizarre. I guess it was there once but you removed or Jossi removed it? Anyway you're splitting hairs I think in a most pointless way. Fact is that in the light of the important "Peace Bomb Satsang" which certainly warrants a place in the article - the inclusion of the disputed sentence makes perfect sense as being interesting, explanatory of a change of emphasis. The lack of mention (if that's correct) of the Peace Bomb Satsang is bad. Your idea to remove the sentence would make a bad situation worse by not mentioning the World Peace thing at all anywhere, or the reason for the current change of emphasis. Again you're arguing to exclude information on weak grounds ie. that the topic is not covered in the article - which in itself is a bad exclusion that may well have been engineered by you or Jossi knowing the history of this article. PatW (talk) 04:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Just to remind you that this is a discussion about making the Lede conform to Wiki guidelines. Can we do that first and then you suggest anything you like. Momento (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Please help me to understand: "Peace in this world" is not "World Peace", is it?--Rainer P. (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes you are correct but regrettably you and I seem to be the only ones who can tell the difference.Momento (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
We can solve the lede/body problem by copying this sentence into the body. That'd be the least disruptive solution.   Will Beback  talk  04:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and make it clear that it is only one opinion.--Rainer P. (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello all! In an amazing example of synchronicity I am also now returning to this article after a year away. How time does fly. Anyway, from what I can see, there was a change over time in Prem Rawat's emphasis. I don't think he ever said he would stop all human conflict, and the article should not (and, I think, does not) suggest that, but he has narrowed his focus to highlight the individual's inner experience. On the whole, I think the current wording is not too bad. I won't buy into the lead or not to lead debate. Rumiton (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
A proposition (moving the thing into "Teachings"): "In the 80s Rawat eliminated the Indian traditions and parables that had been prominent in his discourses and focused on the meditation techniques. One scholar finds, that when he originally aspired to bring about world peace, the idea being that peace would come to the world as individuals experienced inner peace, he now places his attention on helping individuals, which according to him takes priority over societal aims.[13][14]"--Rainer P. (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I object to any changes to the lede. I don't object to adding that sentence to the body of the text. I hope that this will not be the start of endless wrangling over the article which has been so stable for the past year.   Will Beback  talk  15:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Are there two Will Bebacks? Did you not just suggest a similar solution at 04:59?--Rainer P. (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's more or less the same solution. I had suggested simply copying the sentence, but the slight alteration you suggested isn't a problem to me either (others may have different views).   Will Beback  talk  19:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, seems I misunderstood. You mean you object to changes to the lede BEFORE that sentence was put in there!?--Rainer P. (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the communication problem is. I object to any changes to the lede. Is that clear? I object to any significant changes to the article, unless they have a very good reason and have achieved consensus. Is that clear? Copying (not moving) the sentence, or the variation proposed by Rainer, is a minor change and I don't object to that. Is that clear?   Will Beback  talk  19:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Time for an RFC. I'll figure out the wording.Momento (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Momento, before you do that let me ask you about something. One of your complaints with the current material is that it is only in the intro and not in the body. I proposed addressing that problem by copying it into the body. Would that solve the issue for you?   Will Beback  talk  21:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

sorry

i do not no english so i not disscuss to feel but i meet to india ,why 
my name is arun pandey , circle reportor, hariyana haritage monthly masgine my cell,no 9541746558  /9991887023  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.137.24 (talk) 06:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Get a translator and we can chat on your talk page. Cheers. Rumiton (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Lede not representative of article

In April 2009 a sock puppet inserted a sentence into the Lede without discussion that did not refer to any material in the article.[20] When the edit was discussed the consensus was to remove it and it was removed in June [21]. In July an editor reverted 91 edits and returned this article to a point where the sentence was now back in the Lede where it remains.[22]. I object to the sentence because it was inserted without discussion, because when it was discussed prior to the most recent insertion the consensus was to remove it, because it contains new info that is not in the article and because it presents one author's unique theory that I would object to in the article let alone as a stand alone, unqualified opinion prominently displayed in the Lede. I believe the correct action is to remove the sentence immediately. Momento (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue of having it in the intro but not the body can be easily remedied, as we've discussed above. Could you refactor your question so it deals just with the actual content?   Will Beback  talk  22:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Involved editors

What is the relevance of the sock puppet (who was extremely pro-Rawat) to this issue? And is it your claim that the sentence is not a fairly concise description of PR's transition from prominent New Age whatever, to his current motivational speaker (or whatever term you'd insert here) category? I also agree with Will, who has previously suggested we add to the article, thereby eliminating the problem easily. Also, it might be useful to actually quote the sentence you're requesting opinions about imo. -- Maelefique (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
This is a confused RFC. Momento titles it "Lede not representative of article", and he says, in part:
  • I object to the sentence ... because it contains new info that is not in the article...prominently displayed in the Lede.
Then he wrote on my talk page:
  • I'm not interested in your suggestion where you leave the faulty sentence and then seek to ad faulty material to justify it. [23]
Momento hasn't responded here to suggestions that we could easily address that issue by copying the sentence to the body. If the issue isn't the lack of parallel material in the body then it'd simply this RFC be focusing on the actual issues.   Will Beback  talk  03:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
As I also said on your talk page "I'd rather go the Wiki route... where a sentence that is inserted into the lead against consensus ... is removed". Simple. Let's fix the lede first. Remove the sentence, that you admit is not supported by the article, and then we can discuss further changes to the article. The suggestion that material added to the lede without consensus and unsupported by the article should be allowed to stay whilst discussions take place as what to add to the article to justify its inclusion is the opposite to standard Wiki procedure. Do I have to demonstrate by adding a sentence to the Lede? How long would you leave it there?Momento (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The current version of the article has consensus and has been stable for a long time. The sentence in question has been in the article since last summer, and also has consensus. Pleazse don't disrupt the article to prove a point. This topic is still under probation,   Will Beback  talk  05:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Is this a new policy I haven't heard of? A Wiki version of musical chairs! An article is being edited by a number of editors and then one editor says "Stop editing. This version has consensus"! Who gets to decide this? You! This article was being edited three weeks ago and you didn't complain.Momento (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
There hasn't been a significant edit to this article since November 2009.   Will Beback  talk  22:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Will, I had extensively objected against that line in the lede before, as you know, and after it had been irrespectively reinserted in a coup, I felt no inclination to get run over again, when I had no really new insights to add. I felt I should wait for the more eloquent and experienced exilees to return. There was certainly no consensus over the item from my part. And I'm sorry for confusing 'move' and 'copy' above, which created some misunderstanding.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Exilees? Am I one? I like that word, it has a dashing, romantic air to it that I will savor, however undeserving I may feel! This does seem to be a problematic sentence in the lede, but I have a suggestion. Perhaps an uncontentious, undisparaging, non-unduly self serving quote from a primary source might be helpful to reinforce what this secondary source has said. The Prem Rawat Foundation website [[24]] has a section called About Prem Rawat which reports him saying, "It is not the world that needs peace; it is people. When people in the world are at peace within, the world will be at peace.” Would adding this to the lede solve the problem? Rumiton (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a strong and beautiful quote! Who would contradict? But maybe it is for that very reason contentious to some people. But on the other hand there ist truly enough trash in the article.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC) If there is a concensus for putting the Alridge-quote into the body of the article, that quote ought to stand close to it. And if any of these quotes even should find a place in the lede, it is up to the quality of the editors, which one or both.--Rainer P. (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The quote is catchy, but I don't see how it addresses Momento's problem, and definitely doesn't seem to be appropriate for the lede,which is about Prem Rawat. This sentence appears to be an angle of looking at the problem of Peace, while the sentence we're discussing is about the shift it methods (or focus) over time of PR. Doesn't seem to be the same thing to me. -- Maelefique (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Rawat can be quoted from the beginnings of his teachings in a congruent way, namely that peace is the matter of individuals. I think that does address the disputed phrase insofar, as it shows there has not been a change in focus, but only in style. This is also what Geaves points out.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Neither Rawat nor Geaves are objective observers of the history of Rawat's message. The TPRF was formed fairly recently, so it isn't necessarily going to reflect what Guru Maharaj Ji was saying in the 1970s.   Will Beback  talk  18:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Geaves not objective? He's a widely published expert published by the most reputable sources. Is this another new policy? And Rawat? BLP says "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if, etc". And does this mean articles published in the 2000s aren't reliable for matters that happened in 70s?These new policies are making me dizzy.Momento (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Can every one now see that rather than getting caught up in Will's suggestion to discuss what to add to solve the problem of the unrepresentative sentence, we should follow established procedure and simply remove it. That's what happens in every other Wiki article, I don't see why this article should be any different. This farce has gone on long enough.Momento (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
What established procedure are you talking about? Several editors here have objected to your proposed deletion of this sourced material.   Will Beback  talk  21:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Wiki articles are written according to established policies and guidelines and Wiki:Lead says "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". I've said enough on this and it is clear Will is disrupting progress toward improving the article. I'll wait for some "uninvolved editors" input.Momento (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
As has been pointed out repeatedly, that issue can be solved easily and uncontroversially by copying the sentence to the body. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
And has been pointed out by others, there is no consensus to add it anywhere.Momento (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
It's sourced material, written by a scholar. Why shouldn't it be in the article? There may be other views which contradict, but NPOV says to include all significant views. This material has been in the article without complaint since July. It doesn't violate any policies or guidelines. The mere detail of it being in the lede and not the body is easily solved.   Will Beback  talk  22:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I don't see anywhere on this page that anyone has objected to adding the sentence to the article, explicitly, not even Momento. Although I think it's safe to assume he's going to. I haven't seen any attempt to gather consensus either, other than a suggestion to solve the issue here. So since no one's tried to get consensus for that, of course there hasn't been any. I think a lot of proposals that have never been asked haven't got consensus... But this may all just be a red herring, the main issue here, as I see it, is that Momento needs to have consensus to remove the sentence he objects to. If he can't get it, and when he's finished forum shopping, I guess we'll move on to the next thing. -- Maelefique (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you please be more explicit, I am not sure if I understand what you mean. And what exactly is a red herring?--Rainer P. (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest, as did Rainer, shifting it to the article body and adding the quote I mentioned, which I think supports and clarifies the secondary source. It is a wonderful thing that the article has been stable for so long, but small improvements like this should be welcomed. Rumiton (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
To answer Maelifique, it seems to me that Prem Rawat's "angle" on peace is pretty much what this part of the article should be about... given that peace is his declared life's work. No? Rumiton (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
For Rainer P., a red herring is "any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue", and I'm not sure what I could do to be more explicit in my comment above. Is there a particular part you thought I needed to explain better? For Rumiton, I'm not sure I agree, the article is about Prem Rawat, the person, not his life's work, although that should certainly be included, I'm just not sure that quote should be in the lede given it's extremely vague relation to Prem. If you isolate the quote, it could have come from any one of thousands of people. -- Maelefique (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the definition of a red herring! The world seems to be full of those! But I do not see how you can say there have been no efforts for consensus, it seems a little arbitrary to me, there have been proposals. Or are you doubting the will for consensus? I think it is hard and maybe not really possible to separate the person from the work in this case. Who would care about the person at all if it were not for the work? And the work is not correctly characterized by the Alridge quote, in fact it is quite misleading. This issue can be addressed in the article’s body. To pick that one of all quotes for the lede is POV, it should go. But I am afraid I am repeating myself. Perhaps you are right about the will for consensus.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Momento wants uninvolved editors to be involved. I might point out that this article was at one time so dominated by followers of Prem Rawat that champion pro-Rawat editors Jossi and Momento were both eventually banned from editing this article (after the lengthy consideration of 'uninvolved' people). How ironic it is that Will Beback (whom Momento openly scorns) originally arrived here as a very welcome 'uninvolved editor' having, refreshingly, had no involvement either as a follower or ex-follower (both of whose POVs had reached deadlock)...One wonders if this article will now dissolve into another painfully long drawn-out exercise in Rawat whitewash and revisionism now that these Prem Rawat followers have returned from exile. From experience I predict that they will push slowly, tiresomely and inexorably to make this the biased advertisement for Prem Rawat which they have always pushed for, and that was widely criticised as such. With luck the Wiki community will see through their ways, and again see how inappropriate their behaviour is. Given the fact that their exile was only over for the briefest of moments before Momento was back in fighting form, I would advise all uninvolved editors to take a good look at the premie editors history with this article and be thus wary of their agenda for revisionism.PatW (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I see no necessity for ad-personam-agitation at this point, when consensus appears still possible.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

In regards to PatW's overall point, it seems that uninvolved editors are already reluctant to enter this discussion given the lack of comment by anyone else so far, they may already be aware of all the previous issues (or at least, the highlights). How long does an RFC like this usually run for? -- Maelefique (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the lack of input from ininvolved editors is due to a) The complex nature of the RFC and b) the lack of a clearly defined request.
a) An RFC is defined as "an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input". As such, RFCs generally have qualities such as a question being defined in a nutshell in a paragraph, enabling an involved editor with no previous exposure to the article to quickly understand the essense of the dispute and provide an opinion. However, the references provided in the RFC do not provide a clear and succinct understanding of the dispute. As such, it would be difficult for an uninvolved editor to respond to the RFC without spending considerable time researching the dispute.
b) the RFC is formulated as a statement of opinion, without stating a question to be resolved. It merely states an opinion that as sentence should be removed from the lead. What is the actual request for comment?
c) The RFC covers both behavior and content. This again muddies the water in respect of trying to determine what exactly is being requested. Perhaps it should be split into two RFCs, for content and behavior, clearly articulating the nature of the dispute in a form that can be digested by uninvoled parties. Savlonn (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I can't work out exactly what the uninvolved guys are being invited to comment on either. The issue seems to be a simple one. I'm sure we can arrive cheerfully at a consensus:
1. Does the "...takes precedence over societal aims" sentence belong in the lead?
2. If not, does it belong anywhere else in the article?
3. Would adding the "It is not the world that needs peace; it is people" quote explain and support the sentence, and thereby make it more acceptable?
Shall we focus on these 3 questions? Rumiton (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The 4th question is: Are there any issues with this material that are important enough to disrupt the stability of what had been one of the more contentious articles on Wikipedia?   Will Beback  talk  14:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
OK. That's a fourth question. Rumiton (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

ad 4: I don't see a legitimate reason for conservation on grounds of a stability that had been enforced by a year-long ban of major participants. I would certainly respect stability by quality. So let's improve an obvious flaw. Must be really obvious, when editors invoke stability to prevent an overdue correction.--Rainer P. (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You weren't banned. Momento wasn't banned when he edited the material to add to it. Who here wants to return to the turmoil of 18 months ago?   Will Beback  talk  15:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody of course, and I can also see your merits. But you're being evasive.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Is that the kind of comment that promotes collegiality and consensus building? Why is it urgent that we edit this article now when there hasn't been a significant edit for at least the past six months?   Will Beback  talk  16:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right, Will. It is of course not really urgent, it just seemed to pop up naturally. I think it is a fairly easy to see, solvable, closely circumscribed conflict, and it may well serve as a model of how we are going about generally in more complex matters. It seems to be doing that right now. If we can't go ahead in the matter, we can work on our manners, and predominantly I find you helpful at least there.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I see a single purpose account IP editor has just self-undone a comment he/she added today. Thank you, whoever you are, that comment would have been extremely unhelpful. We might see more of that sort of thing (baiting edits) and as Will says, none of us wants to go backwards towards conflict. Could I suggest we all agree to ignore these railers from the sidelines, or just tell them where to get off? Even if they seem to be supporting a POV we might hold, or have held, dear, for some purpose of their own they are trying to revive a negative and wearing situation. Rumiton (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolve the issue as proposed by User:Will Beback above . No further discussion is required, and no other content is affected. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Nik, have you noticed that there is no consensus for that? Mostly, because it is not even a compromise?--Rainer P. (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
A compromise would for example be: Keep the quote, but balance it with an opposing view, and move both into the body. What's so difficult about that? The only argument yet has been, it has not been changed for a while.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Rainer, I think asking things like, "What's so difficult about that?" is really taking us back in the wrong direction. As Will says, "collegiality and consensus building" are absolutely imperative here, or the nightmare will soon begin again and everyone's lives will be consumed by it. There are other ways of phrasing a question or remark that don't invite a retort. Thanks for your understanding. Rumiton (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Rumiton and Kbob on this point. Let's keep to the 'fresh start' ethos and work together. Will - I agree with you in principle, but the article must be allowed to live and grow - trying to keep it static is not an option. I see two options here: 1) Move it into the body "as is" on the grounds that the current lede is not a summmary of the body. 2) Keep the lede as is, as expand on the point in the body, thus justifying the inclusion in the lead. I have no personal preference. Savlonn (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course the article can "live and grow". But stability is also good. For a time, this was among the most edited articles on all of Wikipedia, which is pretty crazy. The lede in particular has undergone extensive and exhausting editing and discussion. Anyone who wants to change it had better have a darn good reason. Regarding your suggestions, I've already endorsed #2 or something like it.   Will Beback  talk  20:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I also endorse #2. -- Maelefique (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
As I've already explained the sentence shouldn't be in the Lede because it contains new info that is one author's unique theory and it shouldn't stand alone as an unqualified opinion prominently displayed in the Lede. As Kbob notes "If the sentence under discussion does not live up to this criteria, then I would think it should be moved out of the lead and placed in the body of the article". That is, not kept in the Lede and also inserted in the article.Momento (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Will, I think Kbob has given us our "darn good reason" why it shouldn't be kept by itself in the lead. How about we move it to the main body, add the quote from TPRF to substantiate it, then decide if it is important enough to be summarized in the lead? Rumiton (talk) 08:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Writing DARN GOOD in lower case can come out looking like DAM GOOD. For the record, I wrote DARN. Thank you for your patience. Rumiton (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

"Uninvolved" versus "disinterested"

For the record, while Kbob may be uninvolved in this topic, he is currently involved in an ArbCom case with me regarding the Transcendental Meditation movement. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is, in many respects, a peer of Prem Rawat. While I'm sure Kbob is participating with the best of intentions, he is probably not an entirely objective observer in this matter. For that reason I don't think his views should be given any more weight than those of involved editors, so far as this RfC is concerned.   Will Beback  talk  16:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, Will. Based on this information, I must strongly agree that Kbob doesn't fit into the spirit of on an uninvolved editor. Surely uninvolved would imply 'dis-interested'; someone who can impartially take a look at the subject matter as an outsider with no interest in related topics. I've just started dipping my toe in the water of the Transcendental Meditation article discussion, so shall keep your information in mind. Savlonn (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
"Uninvolved" means uninvolved in the article being discussed. Whereas "disinterested" means not interested enough in the article to participate in the article and therefore an RFC. Kbob is an experienced editor who has never edited this article, exactly the sort of editor we need. Will's suggestion that Kbob cannot be objective because he's involved in an ArbCom case with Will suggests that Will, NikW2 and PatW cannot be objective because they have participated in an ArbCom case with me. I welcome Kbob's participation and I hope he will not be put off by this lack of Good Faith from Will and Savlonn. I suggest Will and Savlonn remove their comments and I will then remove mine.Momento (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you, personally, think I'm objective on the topic of this article?   Will Beback  talk  19:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Judging by the issue at hand, that of "a sentence in the lead that does not summarize significant points from the body of the article and creates POV and undue weight", I cannot understand how you can a) object to its removal, b) continue to object to its removal despite support for its removal from several editors and c) continue to object to its removal despite support for its removal from an uninvolved editor. I am mystified by your attitude. The only thing I can think of is that you're annoyed that your didn't pick up on this obvious flaw before I did.Momento (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Huh?   Will Beback  talk  19:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
You're the one who says people who have been in ArbCom with you can't be "entirely objective", so by your own definition you aren't. But best person to know if you're objective is you. Do you or have you ever held a religious or spiritual belief? Do you object to Prem Rawat or his teachings?Momento (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think anyone who has participated in this discussion, Kbob included, is entirely objective. I know that after years of disputes with some of the editors here my view of their activities is colored by history. My point here is just that Kbob's participation in this discussion should be seen in light of his involvement both in a similar topic, and in dispute resolution with one of the participants here: me. He is certainly welcome to participate here, as are all of the involved editors.   Will Beback  talk  20:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Let's start with you. Do you or have you ever held a religious or spiritual belief? Do you object to Prem Rawat or his teachings?Momento (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
"Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?" ;)   Will Beback  talk  21:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
You're the one who questioned an editor's Good Faith and objectivity Will. Let's wait an see what other non involved editors say.Momento (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
No, I didn't question his good faith. Just his disinterestedness.   Will Beback  talk  22:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
What does this mean "he is probably not an entirely objective observer in this matter" because "he is currently involved in an ArbCom case with me"! It means he is not editing objectively because he is currently involved in an ArbCom case with me and that is influencing his editing. You are wasting everyone's time.Momento (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
People can participate in good faith without being objective or disinterested. For example, I hope you are doing so. If time is the issue, the maybe we should "reboot" this discussion. Rather than seeking a solution based on consensus, you seem to have pressed forward with trying push a particular issue. Since this issues involves the exact same sentence as your "last edit" before your year-long topic ban, there's an appearance that you're picking up right where you left off, both in terms of content and behavior. Rather than this confrontational approach, I'd encourage you to participate in a more collegial manner.   Will Beback  talk  22:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a big difference between having good faith in someone, and reflecting upon their fields of interest. Arbcom members regularly recuse themselves from involvement in cases which involve subject matters within their field of interest, regardless of whether they have been involved in the specific articles involved in the case. This decision is not perceived as a qualitative judgement of good faith, but a pragmatic assessment of whether the topic lies within their field of interest. As such, the same principle should apply here.
Let’s say that a similar request for uninvolved comment in the “Transcendental Meditation” article had arisen, and that I had happened to come across this request without previous involvement in the article and had made a comment in the ‘uninvolved’ section.
Someone may have then jumped in and noted that “Hey – this guy Savlonn has been involved in Prem Rawat which is in the same area interest – therefore he shouldn’t be commenting as an uninvolved editor”. Now, it may be that I mightn't have considered the relationship between the two articles before making a comment. However, this would have been irrelevant, as my good faith would not have been questioned; the only criterion stated would have been that I had demonstrated involvement in this subject field and as such that I should not be commenting as an uninvolved editor.
In the same respect Kbob may have all the good faith in the world, however this is irrelevant. I am not questioning his ability to act in entirely good faith with the best of intentions, but simply stating that he is not a disinterested party, and thus should recuse himself from commenting in the “uninvolved editors” section.Savlonn (talk) 08:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be drawing a rather long bow, Savlonn. To me, the importance of "uninvolved" is not that the editor has no connection to the subject, but that he/she has not been a part of the article editing process, and will be able to represent the Wikipedian ethos above whatever talk-page politics there may be. Obviously, my opinion in this has been formed independently of the fact that he has supported my suggestion. Rumiton (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

I don't think it matters much what the history of this sentence in the lead is/was. It should be evaluated in the light of common Wiki principles and decided now in the present whether it is appropriate. The lead is a summary of the most salient points in the article. It provides the reader with a taste of what's to come and hopefully draws the reader further on into the article. Sometimes editors will place a sentence in the lead that does not summarize significant points from the body of the article and this creates POV and undue weight. Sentences in the lead should be well sourced and summarize significant information from the body. If the sentence under discussion does not live up to this criteria, then I would think it should be moved out of the lead and placed in the body of the article. -- — Kbob • Talk • 16:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the details of this topic but as an outsider I like Rumiton's suggestion "How about we move it to the main body, add the quote from TPRF to substantiate it, then decide if it is important enough to be summarized in the lead?" I think at present since it's not substantially represented in the body of the article, it's not appropriate for the lead. That said, as time goes on if more sources are found and this subtopic becomes a significant part of the bio then a summary of those points could and should be placed in the lead. Anyway, that's my two cents. I'm sure you all will work this out.-- — Kbob • Talk • 15:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I have commented on several biographical RfC's this week including this one. I have no interest in Prem Rewat and my prior comments were based on my understanding of Wiki principles. My intention, as with all RfC's that I participate in, was to attempt to give a clarification of what I felt were the core principles of the issue. However, in this case I see that my comments have only served to further divide the editors. This is not the outcome I intended and will therefore make no further comment since it doesn't seem to be productive. I will say, in closing, that I agree with Will Beback that no single editor's comments, including mine, should be given any special weight. Good luck to all of you.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

While we're waiting

I can't imagine anyone will have an objections to this but I'll be interested to hear them. The first part of the first sentence in this Lede paragraph is from 2006 and therefore out of order. It should be the last sentence -

Rawat has established his teachings in over eighty countries( and) in the early 1970s the Divine Light Mission was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West.[4][5] In 1973, at age sixteen, he was granted emancipated minor status and married a Western woman, which divided his family and the movement.[6][7] Prem Rawat retained control of the movement outside of India, and took a more active role in its guidance.[8] He became a United States citizen in 1977.[9] He later abandoned the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more universally acceptable.[6] The Divine Light Mission was disbanded in the West in the early 1980s, succeeded by the organizations Elan Vital (1983), and The Prem Rawat Foundation (2001).[10] By 2006 Rawat had established his teachings in over eighty countries.Momento (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

What does it mean to "establish" teachings anyway? Starting a school? Sending teachers? Giving lectures? Shipping books and videos? This appears to be sourced to Geaves, who's been a contentious source, so he's not the best citation for a self-serving fact. Why don't we just undo the edit to begin with?[25] The material that was there before was chronologically correct and well-sourced. One of the problems that I complained about during the ArbCom case is present in that edit: deleting or replacing material while leaving the old citations. If we're going to make a change, let's put the sentence back as it was before the bad edit. Then we can discuss how best to summarize the subject's international scope.   Will Beback  talk  09:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good idea to add or delete material. Let's just improve the article by improving the chronology.Momento (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
If we can't agree on which change to make then let's just drop it. It's not an error, so it doesn't need to be fixed.
We've all had a wonderful vacation from this article and its disputes. Let's not end that peace over petty issues. Is there any significant problem with in the article that needs to be fixed? If not, then let's find articles that do need significant improvement instead.   Will Beback  talk  09:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying I can't improve this article?Momento (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
You already "improved" the article when you replaced well-sourced information that fit into the narrative with out-of-chronology self-serving material from a movement source.   Will Beback  talk  10:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Credit where it's due please Will. The sentence was created by Sylviecyn [26].Momento (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
You wrote:
  • Basing himself in the U.S., Rawat established his teachings in over eighty countries, and in the 70s his original vehicle, Divine Light Mission, was described as the fastest growing new religious movement in the West.
That's the text in question. Sylviecyn's edit to that part was minor. You deleted:
  • His father was Shri Hans Ji Maharaj who was guru to three million followers in India. Rawat succeeded him in 1966 as "satguru" or "Perfect Master".
Some "improvement". But l et's just let it go. Is there anything significant to be fixed?   Will Beback  talk  11:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes. But the sentence we're discussing is Sylviecyn's. And if you won't agree to fix the minor stuff like the sentence in the Lede that obviously doesn't relate to the article or the out of order sentence, how can anyone expect you to allow anyone to fix anything "significant".Momento (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Will you allow me to fix your edit by undoing it, as I proposed above?   Will Beback  talk  11:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
If it isn't clear what "established" means perhaps we should replace it with "His teachings are now available in over 80 countries by satellite, cable TV, websites, video distribution and printed materials". which is closer to the source.Momento (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
How about this, if you agree that the Aldridge sentence belongs in the article but not the Lede, then I'll be happy for you to fix the "established" sentence with the more accurate sentence above.Momento (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
WillBeback, why did you send this message to me via email "M, I'm disappointed that the discourse is devolving like this. The articles are still under probation. I have no interest in creating disputes, but I don't think they help Wikipedia either. One topic ban has just ended, but I don't see any changes. If the same behavior continues as before the blocks then I'll ask for further official response. That's not what I'd hoped for and it isn't what I'd like to see." I am behaving impeccably. I am discussing edits before making them and seeking comments from uninvolved editors (and the only comment we have supports my position not yours). You said nothing when Maelefique wrote "I will immediately revert" but now you are going to "ask for further official response" if I argue with you! Let me remind you and ArbCom that you were admonished for your conduct and that there were only two findings against me. One that I treated Wikipedia as a battleground: [27], [28] (if that's what these diffs prove) and two that absent (sic) adequate justification based on policy or consensus, repeatedly removed sourced material. Here I am spending hours discussing before relocating misplaced "material". How does this in any way represent bad editing? Momento (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Momento, this article is in good enough shape (after years of fighting) and now you are obsessing over minutiae without regard for 'peace' and stability here and with your customary urge to revise things that nobody except you, and a few other obviously biased Rawat followers, could possibly find worth nitpicking about. It feels to me that this is more about you (and other followers of Prem Rawat) wanting to exert control and 'ownership' over this article, than collegial, impartial editing. This has happened before and was judged as an extremely unwelcome development. I reckon that if there were nothing wrong with the article you would still find something to bring into dispute just to get a foot back in the door. People who have lived through the 'battlefield' (that this article was) fear this is the thin end of the wedge you are trying to push again.PatW (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Back to Aldridge

As I said a few days ago, I am fairly happy to leave things alone now, but yesterday I looked at this page on a friend's computer and the different environment somehow highlighted something. This sentence as it stands (Though he originally aspired to bring about world peace, the idea being that peace would come to the world as individuals experienced inner peace, he now places his attention on helping individuals, which according to him takes priority over societal aims.) does not make sense. So the quote that I suggested adding from TPRF could not support it, as it does make sense. If I might diverge for a moment, my home Australian state of Queensland for some years had a Premier (Government leader) who also made no sense, but newspaper and TV reporters (to their discredit) assumed that they knew what he meant to say and wrote up their articles accordingly. The problem then arose, unfortunately, that the Premier began to believe he was actually saying the things they reported, i.e. making sense, and it only made him much worse. Perhaps that has happened with us. We have an idea what the source was talking about, and that is what we read when we look at this sentence, but an uninvolved reader will see it for what it is... nonsense. What shall we do about this? Rumiton (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't you worry about that! I'm sure it all makes sense ;-)Savlonn (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for getting it. Rumiton (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
It's been nearly three weeks since I proposed removing a sentence in the Lede that doesn't refer to any material in the article. It is clearly contrary to Wiki's guide to how a Lede should be structured. And over a week since I proposed fixing the chronology of another part of the Lead which is clearly out of order. Two obvious improvements that have been rejected by editors who have taken the opportunity to describe my efforts as " tiresome", "forum shopping","whitewash and revisionism". I want to improve this article and I don't believe the objections so far are based on any Wiki policy or guidelines but on a desire to informally block me. I think the only way forward is meditation.Momento (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Not all problems can be solved by meditation, but it's worth a try. As for this article, a solution to the problem of material in the lead but not the article has been proposed repeatedly: add a copy of the sentence to the article. It's simple and doesn't require any new word-smithing. Several editors have agree to it. If we do that then we can mark this as resolved and move on to more urgent projects.   Will Beback  talk  22:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
As I have explained numerous times, Alridge's opinion is unique and such a prominent position as the Lede creates POV and undue weight issues. There are far more important issues already in the article that could go in the Lede before Aldridge's. The correct procedure is to deal with one issue at a time and that means remove it from the Lede and then we can discuss how to put it in the article but you reject that obvious and proper solution.Momento (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
So then the real problem isn't with the location - it's that this is a narrowly held view. Have we established that this is the case? I don't think so. We have many sources that say GMJ promised world peace in the 1970s.   Will Beback  talk  22:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The first problem, as I have pointed out numerous times, is that the Alridge material is not represented in the article and therefore shouldn't be in the Lede. The second problem, as I have pointed out numerous times, is that since his opinion is unique, it shouldn't be in the Lede even if it was copied into the article as well. There are more important aspects of PR that are in the article but not in the lede. So your "simple solution", of adding Alridge to the article as a means of keeping it in the lede, isn't appropriate. As least this conversation will show mediators how my simple and reasonable proposal is being stonewalled.Momento (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
If you'd like to start a fresh thread on the subject's efforts towards world peace, or his lack thereof, I'd be happy to participate.   Will Beback  talk  23:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
You can do that if you like. I'm going to focus on the problem at hand.Momento (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
If Aldridge's view isn't exceptional then there's no problem. We haven't established that that's the case.   Will Beback  talk  23:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Ron Geaves in Christopher Partridge (eds.), New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities, pp. 201–02, Oxford University Press, USA (2004) ISBN 978-0195220421
  2. ^ Downton (1979), p. 3
  3. ^ Lewis (1998a), p. 83
  4. ^ Geaves (2006)
  5. ^ a b Melton (1986), pp. 141–45
  6. ^ a b c d Hunt (2003)
  7. ^ Miller (1995), p. 474
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference Morgan was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference CBY1974 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ "The Prem Rawat Foundation". Retrieved 2008-06-09.
  11. ^ Barret (2003), p. 65
  12. ^ Geaves (2004), pp. 201–02
  13. ^ Schnabel (1982), p. 99
  14. ^ Rudin & Rudin (1980), p. 65
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_42&oldid=1136240036"