Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

World peace

• The movement lives on, however, and with its cultic festivals in various cities attracts many who find something uncomplicated in the world peace that such organizations promise.
• 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."
• The guru claims to have a practical plan to achieve world peace. [..] "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.
• Guru Maharaj Ji, the 15-year-old from India, promises to reveal God and achieve world peace.
• Guru Maharaj Ji recently gained international attention when he launched his third World Peace Tour with a tour of the United States in August.
• In addition, the Guru has built a chain of enterprises designed to carry out the "practical plan for world peace" which he will detail at the Astrodome.
• Guru Maharaj Ji. whose promise is to bring world peace, is convening the international convocation to "announce a concrete plan for ending human suffering and ushering in a new age of peace.
• After years of antiwar activism, [Rennie Davis] now believes world peace can come only through the Maharaj Ji's message.
• He says his purpose is to bring world peace by imparting "the knowledge," which his followers say cannot be adequately described in words.
• The national chairman of the Divine Light Mission steps up to the microphone and says this is the most significant event in the history of the human race and he commends us for coming to see it. Then he gets to talking about the Mission's goals of world peace and individual inner 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.
• The Perfect Master's Knowledge will abolish all greed, hunger, violence, will bring a thousand years of world peace such as we have never witnessed in recorded history. The Millennium will begin on November 8, in the Houston Astrodome, where the Perfect Master will give his practical plan for world peace….
• He didn't bring the world peace, as he promised, but at last report he was living in a Malibu mansion valued at $15 million, with other homes in England, New Delhi, Rome, Madrid and who knows where else; driving his choice of a Rolls-Royce, a Maserati, a Ferrari or a garageful of other expensive cars; jetting around the planet on a $25 million Lear jet; or sailing on his $3 million yacht.

• DLM, for instance, during its early years in the West, had clearly millenarian features, proclaiming that Guru Maharaj Ji was the savior who would establish peace in this world during his lifetime. After the unsuccessful programme in the Houston Astrodome in 1973, and the crises within the movement after Maharaj Ji's marriage in 1974, the millenarian aspects were diminished, and they disappeared completely in the late 70's. The focus turned towards the establishment of individual rather than world peace (Björkqvist 1982).
• Foss and Larkin seemed to recognize that the motivations of insiders needed to be taken into account when they suggested that this anomaly was accepted by Divine Light Mission volunteers because they were pursuing the same goals by other means. Namely, many of the devotees had crossed over from alternative political discourse, where they espoused a strong commitment to world peace, now rendered possible by the ideal of internal individual transformation leading to better societies.
• Meditation on knowledge brings peace of mind to each individual who receives knowledge and this is ultimately the way to achieve world peace. If all people, particularly statesmen and politicians, had knowledge, wars could no longer be fought. The emphasis on world peace in the mission's propaganda was prominent in the early conversionist days and DLM appeared to be another millennial sect, predicting that a thousand years of peace would be ushered in by Guru Maharaj Ji. This emphasis has almost disappeared today, premies being far more interested in their own state of peace than in that of the world. The change probably reflects both the signal failure to convert the world's millions and the general counter-cultural shift from a concern to change the world towards exploration of the self. It is also in accord with the current introversionist phase dictated by the leader.
• Prem Rawat claims to offer practical methods by which anyone can achieve spiritual tranquillity. Originally he aspired to bring about world peace but now, he focuses on the needs of the individual, which he says take priority over the demands of society

The first set of sources all confirm that there was an emphasis on world peace. The last three, which are scholarly sources, all describe a shift away from that.   Will Beback  talk  00:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I added Aldridge at the end for comparison. In the context of the other scholars, it doesn't seem out of place.   Will Beback  talk  00:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for those refs, Will, they do indicate that some sort of evolution has taken place. However, I cannot agree that the description of that development as it now stands in the article is adequate, for the reason I gave above (it doesn't make sense.)

Let's look at it again. 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. To me, this seems to be saying, He originally helped individuals achieve inner peace, which he believed was necessary before there could be world peace, but now he helps individuals achieve inner peace, which he believes is the first priority. ? I think a fair condensation, without synthesis, of all the above is possible, but this is not it. Perhaps the work of the comparatively new (unknown to these early 70's sources) TPRF is relevant as an indication of his intentions, as described above: "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." Rumiton (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Scholarly sources, like Aldridge, are preferable to newspaper sources. While the sentence may not be ideal, it sounds like it's close enough that it's not worth opening up this can of worms just to make a minor alteration. 20:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Rumiton is right. The sentence does not make sense. One basic aim of society is to help individuals. For example, on the subject of societal aims and the role of education, The council of the European Union refers to "the development of the individual, who can thus realise his or her full potential and live a good life" and "the development of society, in particular by fostering democracy, reducing the disparities and inequities among individuals and groups and promoting cultural diversity."

So, according to the disputed sentence, Though he originally aspired to bring about world peace, the idea being that peace would come to the world as individuals experienced inner peace, he now places his attention on helping individuals, which according to him takes priority over helping individuals. Obviously, the sentence as it is in the lede is ridiculous.

I agree with Kbob whose comments above seem to have been ignored. "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."

The subject is a living person, the bio should not be set in concrete. Savlon, I think, made that point also. Having just read through this page my impression is that Momento's assessment is correct: Will Beback does appear to be deliberately stonewalling on this issue. Could it be that he is stonewalling merely because it is Momento who wants that silly sentence removed from the lede? And stonewalling while going through the motions of "behaving impeccably" while accusing Momento of having a confrontational approach? It takes two to tango. Will's passive-aggressive tactics are not productive. I think Will should take an honest look at that silly sentence rather than blocking genuine discussion.

I am not an uninvolved editor. Last year I went through a sort of Wikipedia burn out working on this article. I've no wish to go through that again. For that reason I will not participate further in this particular discussion, but I will look at the discussion page from once in a while and comment if I feel its appropriate.--Zanthorp (talk) 03:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Zanthorp. Sorry you felt burned out by all this. I believe it was Bertrand Russel who said, "One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one's work is terribly important." We have seen that around here, and I may have suffered from it myself. Anyway, I recommend to all a nice break for a few months so you can come back daisy-fresh for a whole new approach. Now...what shall we do about that sentence that doesn't make sense? Will, honestly, I don't believe "nothing" is a good and sufficient answer. Rumiton (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Last year I went through a sort of Wikipedia burn out working on this article. I've no wish to go through that again. -Zanthorp

Exactly. That's why I'm so reluctant to restart endless discussions over petty issues, especially in regard to an introduction where we've already spent so much time. However it's apparent that this won't be allowed to rest. So, if it will bring peace to this article again, I'll endorse moving the sentence ouot of the intro and down to the "Teachings" section.   Will Beback  talk  12:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Will, I think you may accept this with more ease when you consider that the contentious sentence is to some editors just not a petty detail, as you chose to see it, but a highly significant information insofar that a high degree of internal consistency is for most qualified sources an essential characteristic of Rawat’s teachings over the decades, and that should not be flatly contradicted in the lede. If the sentence is moved into the teachings section, this should also be pointed out. I suggest we can work on that then. Anyway I don’t think any editor wants this change just for the heck of it or for preventing stability. It is just, as I mentioned before, the article’s grossest and most obvious flaw, and that’s why several editors simultaneously but independently started to grapple with it. Maybe we find agreement for some sentence in the lede indicating that Rawat’s style and methods have changed considerably over time, let’s first see what the teaching section ends up with. And, Zanthorp, “Better to burn out than to fade away...“ (Neil Young, Into The Black)Rainer P. (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

And let me repeat, hopefully for the final time, that the sentence cannot be in the Lede because it doesn't refer to anything in the article. Full stop. The end. The fact that I, and other editors, have further problems with the sentence is irrelevant to this primary issue. And as I have stated numerous times before, shifting from the Lede to the article is an unacceptable solution because the sentence is wrong, confused and internally inconsistent. The correct and only procedure for this sentence is for it to be removed from the Lede without conditions. Then, and only then, can we discuss how it might be included in the article. And a reminder to Will that yes, this is indeed an extremely petty issue that should have been solved weeks ago in five minutes by following standard Wiki procedure but you have personally spent a great deal of time objecting to that course. Momento (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Momento, let me ask you this. If you get your way, and the sentence is deleted, will that bring peace to this topic? Or will you then bring up another issue and keep us here until you get your way on that too?   Will Beback  talk  20:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not my way Will, it's the Wiki way.Momento (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you answer the question please?   Will Beback  talk  20:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?"Momento (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

So it sounds like making this change won't bring any peace to this article, and that whatever we do there will continue to be arguments like this for the forseeable future? Is that correct?

Listen, I understand that it's natural for someone whose interested in a topic and hasn't been able to edit in a year to have pent-up issues they want resolved. If that's the case then please let us know what those issues are, and then we can look at the whole picture. Sentence-by-sentence squabbling is just too exhausting.   Will Beback  talk  21:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It is your ongoing objection to my very reasonable proposal that is causing problems. I don't think anyone else disagrees that the sentence should be removed, it is only your insistence that the silly, illogical sentence should go in the article without discussion. I'm happy to go to mediation as I'm not interested in having one editor block accepted Wiki procedure because of what one editor says "is stonewalling merely because it is Momento who wants that silly sentence removed from the lede." And contrary to your assertion that editing "sentence-by-sentence is just too exhausting", that's the way it's always been done and that's the way it will always happen. Momento (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"I don't think anyone else disagrees that the sentence should be removed", really? maybe you should read some of the discussion...I'll save you some time...

• ""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"
• " 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"
• "Resolve the issue as proposed by User:Will Beback above . No further discussion is required, and no other content is affected. --Nik Wright2"
• "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"
• ..."I would have to say I would like it to stay..." Maelefique"

Sooo.... which parts of the discussion *have* you been reading Momento? Just curious. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 03:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The recent ones. But since you and Will object to removing a sentence from the lede that does not refer to anything in the article I'll give it 48 hours and then proceed to mediation.Momento (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to be reading those either. I made another proposal, but it's been ignored.   Will Beback  talk  21:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Repeating your opinion that the sentence does not refer to anything in the article doesn't make it true, I've already explained this[1], then you decided the sentence must come out because it was a unique opinion, which Will pointed out above is *also* not the case, do you have any other reason for removing it? Also, my above list doesn't even include Will as one of those opposed to your idea, so your statement that intimates Will and I are the ones opposed just seems like more of your *not* reading the discussion, if you aren't going to participate, I think it's going to be difficult to resolve this issue. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Which is why we're going to mediation.Momento (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I am feeling a little unlistened-to here. As I said, I have two problems with that sentence. One...it doesn't make sense. Is this not enough to get it summarily evicted from a BLP? Two...as Momento says, it appears to have landed from somewhere by itself, rather than emerging, as good lead material should, from the article body. I have made some suggestions for remedying these problems, with the agreement of three other editors. Shall I present them again? Rumiton (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody here, except Momento I guess, is arguing against copying this sentence into the article so that the intro/body relationship is proper. As for making sense, I guess I don't understand your point. It makes sense to me, though it's a bit clumsy. Since Momento and Jossi wrote it, I can't take responsibility for that. Could you explain again why you think it's nonsensical?   Will Beback  talk  11:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Not quite so, Will. I have objected and still do so. It could be moved into the body and there be counterbalanced with an apt quote or statement, and then perhaps be distilled into the lede.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Will, in the real-life translating work I do, I came years ago to the conclusion that if I cannot paraphrase the material I am trying to translate then I have not understood it. Or, in rarer cases, it was never understandable to begin with. With the above, the best I could do is, He originally helped individuals achieve inner peace, which he believed was necessary before there could be world peace, but now he helps individuals achieve inner peace, which he believes is the first priority. Zanthorp had a go too, and came up with something equally absurd. I do agree with Momento: first thing we need to do is kick it out of the article, not just move it, then we can talk about whether in some form or other it might be resubmitted. While we are about it, the phrase "established his teachings in over 80 countries" also seems weasely and promotional. Can you paraphrase it? Even if a source said it, is it not essentially meaningless? Let's dump it too. Rumiton (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Rumiton, I'm not sure you've given that your best effort, as a non-professional, when I test your idea out (and I do like the idea), I come up with a paraphrase of "Starting off with an attempt to bring about world peace by creating an inner peace within as many people as possible all at once, Rawat now focuses his attention on a more personal, individual approach, which he feels is a more efficient method than trying to change society as a whole.". Now you may not be ready to offer me a job translating based on that, but I think the paraphrase makes sense. Or do you feel that is not the message that the sentence was trying to convey? That's what I got from the original, and that fits in with my understanding of Rawat's timeline. Possibly the word "efficient" isn't the best word there, but that would seem fixable to me (and before anyone gets excited, I'm not suggesting a change in the article to this, I'm just saying that when I paraphrase this sentence, I still don't have trouble understanding it). -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That made me smile, thank you. I think you may have found within as many people as possible all at once elsewhere. The quote itself doesn't say that. You may have paraphrased something else which would be redaction or worse, synthesis. Rumiton (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Paraphrasability is IMO not a test of meaningfulness, but if it is taken as such then the Blau quote meets it easily "Rawat claims to offer an accessible system with which to achieve personal tranquillity and although he once sought to promote world peace by bringing tranquillity to every individual, he now focuses on the experience of the individual without emphasising social benefits." Will's original proposal on the Blau quote remains the only reasoned option for an edit. Seperately I'm more than happy to accept Rumiton's proposal to remove the Geaves quote, for reasons I'd argued for nearly a year ago. Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Nik, the reason I have given is that the sentence is meaningless. I think meaningfullness is a good Wikipedia principle, though it may not be directly stated anywhere. Let's stick with the good wiki principles. Rumiton (talk) 12:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank God for mediation (it resolves issues when consensus can't be achieved). It isn't Blau's sentence, it's a synthesis of Blau and Alridge. See WP:SYN.Momento (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Does it say "although" in the original quote?--Rainer P. (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring personal attack, mockery, vilification and other extreme non-collegiality

I am going to start this process now. Boldly and unilaterally, without regard to which side of the opinion divide has generated it. Enough is enough. Heads must cool, and cooler heads must prevail. Rumiton (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"Thank God for mediation", sounds like mockery and non-collegiality to me... -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point. Removed! (Momento, in his almost infinite wisdom and compassion will understand and forgive me.) Rumiton (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Mediation is a process offered by Wikipedia to resolve issues where consensus cannot be achieved. Mediation doesn't assume anyone is right or wrong but works with all parties impartially to achieve consensus for the betterment of articles and Wikipedia. So there is no possibility that saying "Thank God for mediation" impugns any individual since we are all equally part of a situation where consensus is not being achieved. We should be thankful such a process exists, not criticise editors for proposing and supporting it. Nor mock them with comments like "almost infinite wisdom and compassion" (only kidding Rumiton. I know you mean well). Momento (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I do. I do mean well. I think Maelefique's comment referred to a possible implication from your statement that we editors might be too set in our ways to reach a consensus without outside help. I don't know about Maelefique, but one half of my family came from Ireland, and decided long ago that authorities were to be kept at a healthy distance, whenever possible. The others, the German half, somehow came to the same conclusion. Let us continue to reason with each other. Rumiton (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

And I still consider it mockery and non-collegial. Rumiton has correctly paraphrased my meaning. It has nothing to do with mediation, which is, of course, a valuable tool to have. It has everything to do with Momento's attitude and disparaging behaviour towards other editors that do not agree with his point of view. God didn't create our mediation process (I checked the diffs). But in a like vein, thank God for consensus. (I checked the diffs there too, and God's handywork is clearly visible). Also, here's a snippet from the AGF page that may have gone un-noticed by Momento:

"Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. Just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed, and exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others if a perceived assumption of bad faith was not clear-cut."

-- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Maelefique, I think you are expressing yourself above in a somewhat hostile way, too. Your point is valid, but your characterization of Momento seems unlikely to win his heart and mind in the way we will need to further this project. Shall we all commit to doing better? Rumiton (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If only we could get *all* to commit to that, it would be much better, yes. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You must be the change you want to see in the world. (Mahatma Gandhi.) Don't you love being pompously lectured at? I do. I always find it uplifting. |-) Rumiton (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

I have asked for the Mediation Cabal to provide mediation over the disputed sentence in the lead.[2] Momento (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, my name is Ronk01 I am a mediator with the Mediation Cabal, and I have taken your case. I am currently reviewing the facts, and would ask exactly what you want me to do, do you want me to make a ruling, or just mediate?Ronk01 (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

For me, please do both. Read all our stuff and tell us where we are going wrong, and also tell us whether you think that sentence as it stands belongs in the article. Thanks for being willing to do the hard stuff. Rumiton (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Ronk01, my understanding is that this situation needs a ruling rather that meditation because I believe the situation is clear cut. If the sentence doesn't conform to the requirements of a lead sentence, it shouldn't be in the lead. The next step that would require mediation is whether then sentence can go in the article in it's current form since several editors believe it is confusing and contradictory. Thanks.Momento (talk) 09:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with that proposed sequence. I would rather wait to make changes until there's agreement. That's due to the long history of conflict on this topic, which has resulted in two previous ArbCom cases. See previous discussions of this sentence: Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 41#Semi-quote from Aldridge, Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 41#Aldridge citation, Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 41#Some additional comments. Some of us are tired out by this fighting. It's regrettable that this one sentence has already consumed so many words, and that it isn't possible to make progress from year to year. Several other proposals have been offered, including moving it to the body of the article, but no compromise has been accepted. The material in question closely follows an excellent source.   Will Beback  talk  10:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Largely sharing Rumiton's and Momento's approach. Thank you, Ronk01, and I wish you find the whole thing more challenging and interesting than arduous and boring.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like those parties involved in the dispute to tell me why (or why not) the sentence should remain, and if it should, how do you propose to better integrate it into the article. Please remember, no edit warring. Ronk01 (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to read the recent discussions? Some are archived at Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 42#Lede and Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 42#Lede not representative of article, and the rest are still on this page. Basically, this text was added by user:Pergamino, a sock of user:Jossi who had claimed to have retired. It was altered and later moved, but due to ongoing edit wars previous mediators restored a relatively stable version which included it. The entire article has been almost untouched for the past seven months, which has been a welcome respite from conflict for many of us.

As for the material itself, it is a close summary of a significant source. It describes how the subject and his message changed over the years. (The subject came to prominence at age eight when he succeeded his father, a successful guru in India. For the first eight years in that role much of the mission was run by his mother and older brothers. He then took control and changed many aspects of his message and the organizations that supported it. While still a minor in the early 1970s, the message was heavily promoted as bringing world peace. Later, that focus on world peace was dropped and achieving inner peace took its place. This sentence reflects that shift.

As for how to resolve this dispute, one option is to do nothing. That option has support, but is apparently rejected entirely some editors. Another option is to copy the sentence so it exists in both the intro and the text. That would address the complaint that the intro doesn't reflect the text. I believe that has also been rejected. A third option would be to move the sentence to the text (presumably the "Teachings" section). That too has been rejected.   Will Beback  talk  00:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I have read much of the recent discussion, and propose that the sentence remain, but that content reflecting this statement be added to the article (if as you say, this is a summary, there must be more detailed information regarding this) This serves both to keep the sentence in the lead (deletion is out of the question) and to include the sentence's topic in the article. Ronk01 (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The "Teachings" section is, in turn, a summary of Teachings of Prem Rawat. Dealing with this is like picking at a loose thread on suit, only to have the suit come apart at the seams. The problems with this sentence are small compared to the problems that arise from trying to fix it. Are we all willing to spend the next year or two dealing with the fallout?   Will Beback  talk  04:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see where you are coming from, so what would you like to see done with this sentence? Ronk01 (talk) 05:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

My preference would be to do nothing. As a compromise, I'm willing to move it down to the teachings section.   Will Beback  talk  05:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Ronk01, I see that your username is very recently established. Last year we had some serious havoc here caused by an admin who turned out to be 16 years old, and who then got himself banned for bad wiki behaviour. Please don't take offense at this, but would you mind reassuring us that you are, 1) an adult, 2) of sufficient real life and wikipedia experience to help out here in a mature way? Sincere thanks. Rumiton (talk) 06:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The sentence isn't a "close summary" of a significant source. It is a almost verbatim, unattributed copy of this sentence by Aldridge - "Originally he aspired to bring about world peace but he now focuses on the needs of the individual, which he says takes priority over the demands of society". It is merely one person's opinion wrapped around this phrase from Blau - "the idea being that peace would come to the world as individuals experienced inner peace". Prominently featuring Aldridge's opinion in the Lead creates a situation that gives UNDUE:WEIGHT to one source's view, which isn't mentioned in the article by him or any other source. Aldridge's opinion is in itself is an EXCEPTIONAL CLAIM since no other source makes it. It is not surprising that a religious/spiritual meditation teacher talks about "Peace"; for more than 40 years Rawat's talks are almost solely concerned with "Inner Peace" as the article makes abundantly clear. Nor does it refer to the major change in Rawat's teachings as explained in the article and alluded to by Will. The change Aldridge describes is clearly a change from a focus on "world peace" to a focus on "the individual". The major change that is explained clearly in the article is the change from an "Indian based" philosophy to a "universal non cultural" philosophy. Which is correctly summarised in the Lead with this - " He later abandoned the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more universally acceptable. The Divine Light Mission was disbanded in the West in the early 1980s". As per this section - "In 1980, Rawat removed all the "religious" aspects of the movement and declared he now wanted "no movement whatsoever". The Hindu references and religious parables that had been prominent in his teachings gave way to a focus on the meditation techniques. Once called "Perfect Master", Prem Rawat abandoned his "almost divine status as guru" but affirmed his status as a master. Scholars such as Kranenborg and Chryssides describe the departure from divine connotations.". And "In 1983 the Divine Light Mission was renamed Elan Vital and Rawat closed the last western ashrams, marking the end of his use of Indian methods for international objectives.".Momento (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, first I will respond to Rumiton, Without getting myself banned for revealing personal information, I can tell you that I am an adult, and that I have been editing Wikipedia for over five years via various IP's, I just recently got tired of dealing with silverlocked pages, and got an account. I take no offense, I have dealt with admins who I am fairly sure are middle schoolers with far too much time on their hands. To respond to the second comment, The sentence Momento proposed does follow the content of the article (and the sources) quite nicely as far as I can tell, but I would like to hear from other users regarding this before I go any furtherRonk01 (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Uhmm... did I miss something there? I don't see where Momento has proposed a sentence, and last I read, he wanted the entire sentence stricken from the lead, and would accept no alternative. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 01:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

"- " He later abandoned the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more universally acceptable.[1] The Divine Light Mission was disbanded in the West in the early 1980s". " while in the current state it is rather POV, with some work, it could turn into something, as it does actually reflect the article, albeit in a rather POV manner. Ronk01 (talk) 03:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation, Ronk01, I am muchly reassured. I am not sure what you are proposing, though. The sentence Momento quoted is already in the lead. Are you suggesting it should stand alone as a summary of the evolution of Prem Rawat's teachings? That is, we should remove the (confusing to me) statement about world peace versus individuals? Rumiton (talk) 04:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that removal of the world peace vs. individual teachings could be founded the simple fact that it is confusing to the reader, but if it were clarified, it could be usefull (providing it receives sufficent treatment in the article) Ronk01 (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If we simply move the sentence to the article, then it becomes part of the treatment of the issue summarized by the intro.   Will Beback  talk  19:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is true, but I would want to see more information regarding the shift, along with more sources. Ronk01 (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the articles and the additional sources excerpted on this page?   Will Beback  talk  02:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of them, and I believe that they are reliable sources, but I am not sure if they are enough to write enough to flesh out that sentence into a defensible paragraph. Ronk01 (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Why does it need a whole paragraph? If we simply move the whole sentence down to the "teaching" sentence it will fit quite well there and we won't need to make further changes.   Will Beback  talk  03:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to butt in, but Will, Ronk01 has called this sentence "confusing to the reader" and noted that it is not sufficiently supported by sources. You yourself have called it "clumsy" and I and others have said that "it doesn't make sense." I know you fear that floodgates will open, but why not get rid of it and just see what happens? Rumiton (talk) 03:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, let me ask you about those floodgates. What's next after this? Momento has refused to answer. Is there any other text that needs to be fixed? If so, let's look at all of it at once rather than spending the next year fixing one sentence after another.   Will Beback  talk  03:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to but in Rumiton but I must reply to Will before it gets left behind. "What's next after this? Momento has refused to answer". That sounds like a line from Jethro Tull. I've answered every question and I've already brought up the time warp of - "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." - which starts off with the situation in "2006" before advancing to the "early 1970's". The whole "Charisma and Leadership" section is UNDUE:WEIGHT. Do you know of any other Wiki BLP that has an entire section devoted to an esoteric yet general discussion about obvious qualities. I see no point in the whole section. If you want speed Will, come across to "Teachings". And now back to Rumiton's reply to Will.Momento (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

A reasonable suggestion. Give me a few minutes to have another look. Rumiton (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, as I said a while ago, I don't like "...established his teachings in over 80 countries." While grammatically it makes sense, it really doesn't tell the reader anything. How does one "establish one's teachings"? Apart from that I can live with the few clumsy bits of syntax I can see later on. Of course, if recent, reliable sources should appear, we should look at them openly. Rumiton (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Ronk01, the point that Will has raised re:the floodgates, needs to be addressed by you as mediator, not least because your own approach seems to envisage work on the article beyond the single sentence under consideration. If we are indeed going to reopen this article (and all its relatives) for wide scale revision, it would be better to know that at the begining. As it is this article has achieved incidental stability under it's own weight but as soon as you start shifting things around, that stability will fail. If for example one starts with: He later abandoned the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more universally acceptable.[1] The Divine Light Mission was disbanded in the West in the early 1980s". we have to assess the veracity of these statements which although 'sourced' are demonstrably false - the DLM was not disbanded, it was renamed, while the whole notion of Indian/non Indian aspects is dependent upon clumsy semantics, to the extent that it amounts to little more than a straw dog argument. We have a fair proposal which meets a 'good enough' test to move the the sentence Momento doesn't like. If we are indeed going to go beyond that proposal within the mediation then the context of that should be the Wikipedia:WikiProject Prem Rawat. Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Rumiton, how do you like: ...has students (followers?) in over 80 countries? Sounds more understandable. Maybe something we all can casually find consensus over, while we're at it.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Any teacher with 80 students could fly them to 80 countries and make that claim. I agree with Rumiton, it should go and as the editor who put it in, I'm going to relocate it until we decide whether it should go. If any one is upset by this please revert and we can add it to the talk page.Momento (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Relocating didn't work. The "established teachings in over 80 countries" sentence looked as 'out of place' at the end of the paragraph as it did at the front. Once agin, please revert if you disagree and I won't mention it again.Momento (talk) 10:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Rainer, thanks for trying, but it still doesn't mean anything, and it's a bit like pinning a "kick me" sign to your lower back. Future editors will do exactly that. Let's try for a version that is neutral and factual, and neither hostile nor promotional. Personally, I don't think we are far from that at the moment. Rumiton (talk) 12:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe that the article merits a full review, but not major changes, I just think that we need to look over the sourcing of the article and ensure that it is up to date. I do agree that moving the sentence (with some major revisions to relfect valid sources) is wise, However, I do not see this as "opening the floodgates," since we would be reevaluating, not rewriting. The article must reflect the most current sourcing. Finally, I would like to take an informal vite regarding the sentence. I have set up a section for this on the casefile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronk01 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What is your role in this huge project going to be? Are you going to be doing this review? Are you mediating this dispute or are you going to be judging what content is acceptable? I'm happy to have you mediating, but I don't think you have as much experience in judging content or policy issues as other editors here, so I'm not confident in this as a process.   Will Beback  talk  05:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ronk01, your response is not logical. If a review of sources is undertaken it must axiomatically be envisaged that some sources will be judged unfit and that others will be added - this must necessarily involve rewriting those parts of the articles (all those covered by the Prem Rawat WP project) where the prefered new sources provide new or alternate data. There is no way to minimise the scope of the review, and there is no way at the outset to set limits on what may or may not arise from the review. Perhaps you would have the courtesy to read the content of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Prem_Rawat before proposing to reinvent the wheel. I would also ask that you give a clear explantion regarding your approach to the discipline of writing history, given that you say "The article must reflect the most current sourcing."which seems to imply that you consider "most recent" to equal "most accurate". --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify my statement, I do not wish to judge content, but I do believe that the article needs to be reviewed throughly, and not just once sentence in the introdution. Additionally, I should also clarify my statement regarding new sourcing, I merely wish that we use the most current, but also the most accurate sources. I am sorry that most of my comment is nonsense, I disagree with most of it myself (I was nearly asleep at the time, that's what an 18 hour hospital shif does to you, especially when 10 of those hours are in surgery) I do think that some of the sources need to be checked for validity (which, given my unfamiliarity with the project, I could not do) as many editors are attacking this source of that one, we need irrefutable souring to back our information, remember, this is a BLP. Ronk01 (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that you think the article needs to be 'reviewed thoroughly'. On the one hand I agree. Go to Google and type in 'Prem Rawat'. You will see dozens of websites amongst which many are by individuals passionately opposed to Prem Rawat. There's a mountain of criticism and missing information out there! Much of it can be properly sourced too. Much of it has been taken out already at some stage by premies. There's so much that even I, as an interested party, have no time or stomach to wade through in its entirety. Clearly this man is a living person who is surrounded by passionate controversy, mostly now deriving from critical former followers although in the past, when his ambitions were more of a 'I have come to save the Planet' nature, his higher public profile drew plenty of well-documented media derision. Is all this reflected proportionately in the article? I think not, and that's something might want to be redressed in a review. What I strongly oppose is that this 'thorough review' be overly influenced, as it has been, by current followers of Prem Rawat or equally by his critics. As I see it, It is the formers (followers) predominant, ardent & aggressive editing that is responsible for the toned-down 'puff piece advertorial' that this article has been accused of being.PatW (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Universally

The source actually says "the wider acceptance of his teachings", so I've changed "universally" to "widely". I think it's best to discuss edits before making them. Rumiton, Will Beback, Rainer and I all expressed problems with the material I removed and it was material that I had originally inserted so I was removing material I had added rather than someone else's. Is there any material you have added to the article you think should be removed?Momento (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm disturbed by the rash of undiscussed edits. I hope it won't continue.   Will Beback  talk  04:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I do too. Rumiton (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. But the two edits have been great improvements. Now lt's get rid of the aldridge sentence.Momento (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Changing "universally" to "wider" is not a "great improvement". The obsession with the Aldridge material, from a scholarly source, is getting bizarre.   Will Beback  talk  05:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a great improvement. "Widely" is closer to the source and getting rid of the "80 students" is another. I'm not attached to Aldridge. I'm happy for his opinion to float off into the universe.Momento (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Momento please self revert your last edit. Widely is not closer to wider than is universally, it is just equally unrelated. Your arguments about Aldridge have not achieved consensus and IMO are unlikely to do so unless you change your approach which looks ever more like Wikipedia:I just don't like it. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Nik, it doesn't matter what we think, it is what the source wrote and therefore "widely" is what we use. And PatW, please delete your ad hominem attack. FACT: Revera removed "universally" but no one has criticised him for removing it, only me for repairing it. FACT: The four editors who have been actively discussing the sentence "Rawat has established his teachings in over eighty countries" have all objected to it. Rumiton and I would like it removed, Rainer doesn't like it and Will Beback suggested, "Why don't we just undo the edit to begin with?"[3] As the editor who put it in, I think I am entitled to repair my own mistake with the support of those who have been discussing it. If anyone has an argument to a) revert the sentence to before Revera's edit and/or b) reinsert the sentence everyone objects to, please make them but stop the abuse.Momento (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You've already written above that the source is "the wider acceptance of his teachings" In what usage in normal English is "wider" equivalent to "widley". "Wider" is relative - two microns are wider than one micron but there are very few contexts where something distributed over two microns would be described as 'widely spread'. "Widely" as an adverb confers the quality of widness, which is simply not justified by the source. This is basic English, so please revert to the less poor previous version.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The lead sentence says "more widely" which makes it equivalent to "wider".Momento (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

"More widely" isn't equivalent to "wider" but that need not now concern us. The rhetorical splitting of the otherwise inviolable infinitive 'universally', had the advantage of deflecting focus from the rest of the sentence, if you now insist on seeking to make the sentence functional then it opens it up for a precise test against the source which is - "He came to recognize that the Indian influences on his followers in the West were a hindrance to the wider acceptance of his teachings." The text :"He later abandoned the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable.[5]" shifts the whole meaning of Hunt's words from a description of Rawat's 'recognition' onto the imputed action 'abandoned', which is then accompanied by the unjustified (by any source)intentionality of making his message more widely acceptable. The only thing to do now is delete the whole sentence as it is wholly unreferenced. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Editor Behaviour & Mediation

new section created to split content discussion from mediation mechanics --Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

PatW, while I appreciate your concern, and am considering your opinion (as I do all opinions) I would ask you to please remain calm when discussing article content. Ronk01 (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I announced unilaterally above that in the interests of editor cooperation I would begin deleting any personally insulting or anti-teamwork posts that might appear here, from whichever side of the opinion divide. Nobody objected, and it seems to have been a good way to proceed, as it has resulted in a couple of potential explosive devices being defused. The above PatW post seems a pretty good example. Let us leave the past behind us, where it belongs. Rumiton (talk) 11:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Who the hell do you think you are to delete my comments? This is just another example of you followers of Prem Rawat being authoritarian, controlling, prefectorial and pushy which drove many, many people away from editing this article in the past? This is the sort of history newcomers like Ronk need to be aware of when dealing with completely biased followers of Prem Rawat on a mission here to 'clean up' the article. Ronk may have detected a note of frustration in my comment but it was utterly sincere and I think, a very important and relevant point in the light that, since several followers returned from exile, history is clearly repeating itself. What on earth makes you think you have the right to remove comments from this discussion? You guys have started a new controversy - take the reaction. Too passionate for your taste? Your comments about 'teamwork' and 'collegiality' etc are a transparent pretence. It's clear from your action deleting my post that the only team you want to permit here is one comprised of people who either share your POV or you can soften up to think you have a harmless agenda. PatW (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, deletion of my own and other editors' comments on my own talk-page (!) was a trick that Jossi tried on me some time back. Details can be read here (about half way through the small section titled "Contentious/BLP"). Revera (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

And...how indicative of all the revisionist attitude of Prem Rawat followers is your last sentence Rumiton? "Let us leave the past behind us, where it belongs." A Freudian slip if ever there was. Ronk, are you aware of the ongoing major criticicism of Prem Rawat and his organisation that drew many to strongly object to the revisionism exercised here? I can tell you that many people have taken great offence to a whole raft of misrepresentations about Rawat's past that have been promulgated here and elsewhere. Now do you get the message Rumiton? We need to learn from the past NOT bury it. Immediately that translates into anyone dealing with previously banned editors should not take their comments at face value and rather should be aware of their history. PatW (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, Ronk...I guess the ball's in your court. Are you glad you came? Rumiton (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC) I withdraw the last sentence. It was unintentionally uncollegial. Rumiton (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

OK since Rumiton apparently doesn't wish to reinstate my former expression, here it is again but (as a gesture of compliance) with anything suggestive of me not being suitably 'calm' removed and more or less as a list of prosaic points:

• I am disheartened that Prem Rawat followers are showing signs of repeating their past pattern of 'assumed ownership' of this article.
• Momento's recent language and actions convey to me a haughty disregard and contempt for the opinions of others in which he appears to revel. His co-editor Jossi and he did this before which caused endless trouble.
• To be informed of the 'Rawat Followers' attitude to teamwork one might want to learn from Jossi Fresco:

Jossi eventually admitted (as a 'Parthian Shot' to his departure from Wikipedia) that he'd felt that he was a player on the 'Ultimate Team' and that 'in the Ultimate Game you don't need to play by the rules' . I took the insinuation to be unethical. ie. that followers of Prem Rawat are superior and exempt from social rules in a 'game' where achieving the greater end of revising Rawats image to suit their/his agenda is the end goal.

• User:Jossi was employed by Prem Rawat and used his administrator status against critics of Prem Rawat.
• It would be a shame if Ronk was naive/uninformed about the past and allowed himself to be manipulated by partisan editors and opened the doors to them ravaging this article (again), leaving only a squeaky clean partisan, revised version.
• Ronk please thoroughly examine the past of this article before you become the unwitting catalyst to another very nasty protracted wikipedia war.
• Ronk, are you aware of the responsibility I am implying that you have here in the light of the articles controversial history?
• Have you thoroughly checked out how the behaviour of Jossi actually drew Wikipedia into some public disrepute?
• Some of us here fear that if you open the door to Momento you will invite a relentless chipping away of the article by Rawat followers (like Momento and Rumiton' .
• In the light of the language and recent actions here of those who have returned from exile it has hard not to be skeptical of their repentance and more suggestive that their return heralds an increased determination to serve the man they revere's need to revise his controversial past.
• I would like to warn Ronk that historically Prem Rawats followers have showed no qualms about exerting extremely determined, pretty much full-time commitment to exerting dominance and control over this and other articles about Prem Rawat. My point being that their religious /zealous concern went beyond normal interested editing into an area that was unethical and eventually resulted in Arboms/ expulsions etc.
• Also their tactics - in my experience (especially with Momento & Jossi) - have been to chide and hold in such disgust - the opinions, evidence and arguments of all people who criticise Prem Rawat - that they draw them out into such endless bluster that critics simply loose heart, run out of time and leave in frustration.
• There is a wealth of interesting and relevant information missing from this article - mostly of a critical nature - which these people do not want to include and have unfortunately largely succeeded in suppressing.
• Another tactic of the followers is to invite mediation etc and then pretend to be all sweetness and light and to cast anyone who expresses passionate resistance to their designs, as a 'hate group' member or someone only capable of flames. What is often missed is the history of constant baiting of critics by the Rawat followers.
• Their tactic has been to outdo the commitment and time their opponents have, or are prepared to invest in editing this article. This is effective since followers of the subject of this article have an un-matched level of interest - albeit highly biased.
• My approach to this article was to attempt to edit as impartially as possible for someone who is quite critical of Prem Rawat and also was very involved in his past. It quickly became apparent that this was not possible to do, given my relative lack of time. So I decided to limit my contributions to arguing on the Talk Page rather than to follow the 'exit route' from this article taken by the many others I mentioned who were utterly frustrated at the prospect of engaging the partisan guards of the article. I ultimately felt that ethically it would be the best outcome if folllowers and ex-followers BOTH abandoned the article to truly impartial people, maybe restricting their activities to the Talk Page. The nearest it came to that was when the premies were banned from the article after the last Arbcom and there were a couple of real impartial editors (by which I mean: neither with a history as a critic or follower of Rawat) - namely Wilbeack, Maelefique and some others. Since then there has been the year of stability Will has spoken of. PatW (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for calmly restating your point. I undeerstand your concerns, and ask that no major eidts to the main page be made until we can resolve this peacefully here on the talk page. Also, do not think that I will not have ArbCom impose topic bans on disruptive editors. Ronk01 (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to note that the opinion poll/vote on the meidation page is still open, please vote if you have not already, all are welcome. Ronk01 (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ronk01, I don't think a post that says "Momento's recent language and actions convey to me a haughty disregard and contempt for the opinions of others in which he appears to revel", "if you open the door to Momento you will invite a relentless chipping away of the article by Rawat followers (like Momento and Rumiton") and "Momento tactics ..has been to chide and hold in such disgust" is either calm or acceptable. This article is under probation and "any editor may be banned from any or all of the articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivilty. Maelefique, Will Beback and PatW are quick to complain about me but PatW's posts go unremarked. PatW has been warned many times about his personal attacks and incivility, so please don't be surprised that, in the continued absence of any action by you and others, I will ask an uninvolved admin to block PatW if there's another one.Momento (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should be more specific, his comment was much more civil than the previous one was. Ronk01 (talk) 01:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, like incest, it's all relative. (Sorry, my attempt at a joke.) Anyway, I don't believe a careful reading of this article's history shows anything like the picture painted by PatW. It seems to be an attempt to divide the editors working here now, to make it impossible for them to cooperate. The essence of "disruptive" I would think. This has happened before. Let us not allow it. The guidelines re "personal attacks and incivility" need to be vigorously enforced or we are going to relive the article's past. None of us enjoyed it the first time. Rumiton (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Rumiton it was uncivil of you to delete another editor's Talk page contribution, especially so when the editor was addressing a Mediator. It's no use you complaining about other editors refering to your past behaviour if after a years absence four Rawat supporters turn up on this article all at the same time, all singing from the same hymn sheet then the testWP:DUCK reasonably applies. WP:AGF is not obligatory in the face of contrary evidence.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Talking of incest, doesn't Jossi's attempt to 'own' this article come to mind, Rumiton? Maybe you might not want to see that, and certainly you're entitled to express your own opinion. But please bear in mind that it's not the only one (neither is mine).

You recommend "a careful reading of this article's history". Have read it - all? Carefully? Have you any idea how many words it runs to? My guess would be that the count would exceed even that of "War and Peace"!

Anyway, for the record, PatW's precis/summary of the way this article has been edited might not meet with your approval, but it sounds pretty damn accurate to me. Just thought you might like to bear that in mind, just in case you should be tempted to try to 'take ownership' of the article again. (See evidence) Revera (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It worries me to hear that Rumiton and Momento are characterising the important factor needed here as being just civility and collegiality. It's all very fine to look back at the past of this article and say 'none of us enjoyed it the first time' as if to negate any responsibility for the divisions. Also there's no need for me to disrupt and divide editors here. That is a smoke-screen to cover a pretence of 'agreement'. The editors are divided in POV -there's nothing we can do to change that. Rumiton and Momento are followers of Prem Rawat and I and one or two others are ex-followers. We disagree. What Rumiton and Momento want is for ex-premies to leave them alone to smooth talk the mediators they cry foul to. Running to 3rd parties to complain about my incivility could be construed as somewhat hypocritical. Jossi formerly used his admin status literally to bait and block people who opposed his premie team efforts to control this article. He spent his entire time trying to block me etc. His blocking of Rawat critics was itself drawn into question as being uncivil and inappropriate because of his direct affiliation with Prem Rawat. How about we simply live with the fact that we feel very strongly and we accept each others mutual disagreements like adults, and maybe with a some humour? Do Rumiton and Momento want to make this a 'civility' competition? I think that itself is a distraction that they hope will play in their favour. I'm increasingly seeing how this 'collegiality' thing has historically been a weapon against people who don't have the time to waste following, what I perceive to be, highly insubstantial, long-drawn out bluster. A case in point is when we argued, literally ad nauseam, about whether Rawat thought of himself and wanted others to believe he was God or God-like and hence, whether we should include quotes here about that. Guess what? The followers argued vociferously to deny and excise any thing that suggested that. I, and many others who enjoined the discussion, manifestly became simply worn down by Momento's (in particular) 'argumentative style' which frankly I call insubstantial bluster. It is a pertinent fact that almost all the people who have embarked on the job of taking premies to task in a Prem Rawat argument here have left in frustration concluding that it is the followers resilience, not the sense of their arguments, that is superior. I remember a Canadian lawyer, who gave up trying to argue here, complimented me that I was one of the most even-handed voices he'd come across in a debate and how notable it was that even I had been driven to the limits of patience trying to argue with Momento and Jossi. Do you know how many people have given up this article because they see it as an impossible task matching PR's followers zealous commitment? I would estimate that it runs into dozens. Surely it is reasonable therefore a) that one of the few remaining opposing ex-followers voices has a tone of genuine frustration b) there is some alarm and concern about the past repeating itself given the return of banned editors who have not expressed their reformed intentions and who's actions suggest the opposite b) Followers of Prem Rawat here should reasonably back off and allow more impartial voices to review the article. I might remind you that I was not banned for a year. It was only the followers. I was also being judged in that Arbcom process. My incivility and 'disruptive' presence apparently attracted quite a bit more sympathy than theirs. Have they returned with a different attitude? If so exactly what is the extent of their remorse or reform? PatW (talk) 11:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Rumiton says your attempt to let Ronk (who he/she?) gain some insight into this article's past was "... an attempt to divide the editors working here now, to make it impossible for them to cooperate. The essence of "disruptive" I would think"

Seeing as it was Rumiton, Momento and Jossi who were judged by the Wiki arbitration process as being the guilty parties - and banned - for disruption, can such irony (or should I say 'hypocrisy'?) really escape them? I doubt it escapes many others! But I seriously wonder if Ronk is among them.

And I wonder who Jossi would be liaising with, if he ever wanted to get his "Master"'s voice aired on Wikipedia again? Surely not Momento or Rumiton?

PS This is in no way intended to suggest that Ronk might be in league with such media-manipulators. (Though it's not impossible to envisage that, in trying to make their 'master's' message more amenable, might want to make contact with someone in Ronk's position, and attempt to influence his/her impartiality).

Which, quite frankly, is where, in my opinion, Wikipedia fails as a reputable source (as far as BLPs- Biographies of Living Persons is concerned). Revera (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I can assure you that understand the history of this debate (I have read both Arbitrations.) I have some serious concerns regarding POV and COI on this article, and would again ask that no edits be made to the article. Ronk01 (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

As for editing the article, I offer my apologies if I have contravened any previous ruling. I thought the criterion concerned only "disruptive" edits. My recent edit was simply to correct a matter of grammar (ie "universal" used grammatically incorrectly as a comparative).

However, I wonder why this article has suddenly been considered to be under your jurisdication' (as it were) Ronk. Care to say something about yourself, and perhaps give a brief background to why you're concerned with the Prem Rawat article? Revera (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

My request applied only to addition or deletion of content, not uncontested copyediting. I apologize for any confusion. This article is under my "jusridiction" as MEDCAB meidator. I have been editing Wikipeida for over five years under various IP's (not socking though) And a few months ago, I finally decided to start an account. My primary interest is in medicine, but on Wikipedia, most of my work is in mediation and anti-vandalisim, though I did recently conduct a rather successful merge of a few articles relating to the cardiac skeleton. My interest here is as a mediator only, I have no COI. Ronk01 (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify - this article isn't under Ronk01's jurisdiction, or anybody else's for that matter. MedCab isn't an official body, so doesn't have any power. MedCab mediators can assist parties to find a workable compromise, and, if appropriate, gain agreement with editors that during this process they won't edit the article, but that is purely voluntary. PhilKnight (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I used jurisdiction loosely, to reflect the terminology used by other editors. And my request was purely voluntary, so that the editors could work this out without edit warring. I appreciate your input PhilKnight, but I believe that the editors of this page know enough about dispute resolution here on Wikipedia such that your explaination is rather redundant and frankly, disruptive to this discussion in my humble opinion. Ronk01 (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you're here Phil, would you tell us whether PatW's and Revera's comments above contravene "Any editor may be banned from any or all of the Prem Rawat articles, or other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks and incivilty". I find his posts uncivil and an unprovoked attack on me and others and I shouldn't have to put up with it.Momento (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, Ronk, but is your assumed 'jurisdiction' of this article valid? "MedCab is unofficial and doesn't have any authority. So MedCab mediators can't place articles under their jurisdiction". So says another editor on your talk-page, and I'm sure we'd all benefit from some clarification on this, at least in the interests of communal trust and respect of those who haven't yet 'blotted their copy-book', as it were.

And as for Momento's subjective reaction to my posts (all of them?), perhaps he'd like to specify what precisely gets his goat, and what - precisely - he finds unprovoked or incivil. Revera (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Revera, I should have introduced myself - I'm a coordinator of MedCab. I fully agree MedCab is completely unofficial, and doesn't have any authority. PhilKnight (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi PhilKnight, and thanks for introducing yourself. I'm still puzzled as to why Ronk should say the following: "this article is under my "jusridiction" (sic) as MEDCAB meidator (sic)".'' And, as my question was directed to Ronk, rather than yourself, perhaps Ronk might like to say something in the hope of clarifying this rather odd situation? Maybe by giving some indication as to what MEDCAB is? (I've searched Wiki and can find no reference to it). Revera (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize profusely regarding this, I should have been more clear, I am the Mediator for this article (this position carries no power whatsoever) when you asked about jurisdiction, this is what I thought you refered to. Once again, my request that no eidts be made to the page was just that, a request. I was under the mistaken impression that you understood this, and once again, I apologize, and ask that we return to the issue at hand, Ronk01 (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, Ronk. Could I make one request? - that the page about MEDCAB (aka Mediation Cabal) shows up when entering those terms into the search field? Would help a lot! Revera (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ronk, I don't think you are filling anyone with confidence right now. For the last week or so, we have seen major incivilities, baiting and personal attacks going unremarked on, amid total confusion as to what you are doing here. This cannot end fruitfully, and I want no part in it.

To Revera, just type WP:MEDCAB into the search field, thish should bring up the page. To the person who is not signing their comments, I am not considering unsigned comments, so please sign. Ronk01 (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know what happened there. It was me. Rumiton (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Very well then Rumiton, the same problem has happened to me in the past. TO address your concerns, this is a very difficult topic to mediate, since all parties are so polarized, so that no matter who is meidating, someone is going to get angry, and make things worse. That fact is inevitable, but once we can all calm down, we can work on resolving our disputes, which extend far beyond the sentence that has been hacked to death over the past two weeks. Ronk01 (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The topic of this mediation is irrelevant. And the issue at hand, and the issue you were asked to mediate, is very simple. And that issue is "should the sentence be in the lead". Since Wiki lead says "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article", the answer is obviously "no".[4] However, rather than impartially support common Wiki practice you have ignored the reason I asked for mediation and become involved in peripheral stuff that has been investigated, argued and resolved years ago. As I have said many times, first things first. If you don't have the knowledge or strength to ask that Wiki practices be followed, to quote Rumiton - "This cannot end fruitfully, and I want no part in it".Momento (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Very well then, I will end this mediation and give my reccomendation. It is my reccomendation that the sentence be retained, but not in the lead, since it really has no place there. I would reccomend that it be moved to the "Teachings" section. If any party has an issue with this, please post below, and keep on topic. Parties who are uncooperative, violate probation on this article, or erase other parties comments will be reffered to an uninvolved administrator to be topic banned, likely indefintely. Ronk01 (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ronk, please carry on mediating. Don't think that because a couple of people here find your presence challenging that your involvement is not welcome. You have my vote of confidence. I agree with all your evaluations and recommendations and welcome your input and good faith however unofficial your 'mediator-ship' is. I absolutely refute Momento's allegation that the debates of the past were properly 'investigated, argued and resolved years ago'.PatW (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention of leaving, I have been asked by an Administrator to mediate this article long-term. Above, I was stating my reccomendations regarding the ongoing mediation for the sentence. Ronk01 (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The easy thing is taking it out of the lead because it clearly doesn't belong. But where do you think it belongs? I can see it could fit in the "Teachings of Prem Rawat" article but I can't see how it could fit in the very condensed summary of numerous sources in the "Teachings" section.Momento (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ronk, you are making my head spin. You say "Very well then, I will end this mediation and give my reccomendation..." and an hour later you say "I have no intention of leaving, I have been asked by an Administrator to mediate this article long-term." Mediators need to establish trust with their clients. Please do so. Rumiton (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I have had some trouble with people hacking on my account so most of my posts have had some major delays. What I mean is that I am ending the mediation for the sentence, I believe that moving the sentence (providing that it is properly cleaned up) would be a suitable compromise. To respond to Momento, I would reccomend tha I be edited into some sort of explaination of how the teachings of Rawat have changed over the years. The information in this sentence is valuable, and does reflect accurate sourcing. Ronk01 (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Rawat's history - the official version?

Divine Light Mission is a notable and important part of Rawat's history. As such, shouldn't the admirably concise entry in Hutchison Encyclopedia's (a reputable and widely-available publication) be - at least - referred to in the article?

It reads, in full:

Divine Light Mission

Religious movement founded in India in 1960, which gained a prominent following in the USA in the 1970s. It proclaims Guru Maharaj Ji as the present age's successor to the gods or religious leaders Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad. He is believed to be able to provide his followers with the knowledge required to attain salvation. Article © Research Machines plc 2009. All rights reserved.

The Hutchinson Encylopedia entry on 'Divine Light Mission' Revera (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You present an interesting point, I would like to see this considered for a possible mention in the article. Ronk01 (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)\\

You must be new here. Rawat/aka Maharaj's claim to divinity has been a bone of contention for many years here.

However, as welcome as new/fresh insights on the disputes may be, may I suggest that a mere reading of the Arbitration documents in no way qualifies you to pass judgement on what has been a long drawn-out conflict to get the facts presented equitably? Please don't take this as a personal insult. But please DO take the trouble to educate yourself re the history of this long-standing dispute before you jump in at the deep end, as it were.

If you haven't already.

With respect. Revera (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I am new here actually, I am the MEDCAB mediator for this article, I started last week. I actually have read much of the history of this article (as mush as one person can bear to read), I was just giving the ArbComs as examples. Ronk01 (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Please note the difference between what Rawat says about himself and what a source says about what Divine Light Mission said.Momento (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

One thing for you to consider Momento, what people say about themselves (especially those in controversial positions) is often unreliable, much as is information from detractors of those persons. Ronk01 (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Prem Rawat: "I am God!", Divine Light Mission: "He's God!!", Press: "Do you say you're God?", Prem Rawat: "No. Ask my followers", Press: "We did and they said you are", Rawat "I never said that", Rawat followers: He never said that!", Detractors "Yes he did!!" - Ronk - "???"PatW (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say that Wikipedia should provide an account of that discussion, not make a decision one way or the other, remember, Wikipedia is not a place for political or religious debate. Ronk01 (talk) 01:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no such discussion. Could you please first resolve the issue of the lead sentence?Momento (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Momento, I refer to the claims that Prem Rawat is implying autodefication, this is an important issue, and should be addresed. Regarding the sentence, there is no consensus on any action. Once again, if yuo have not done so already, Please vote on the mediation casepage. Ronk01 (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, Ronk01, can you provide a link to that mediation page?--Rainer P. (talk) 08:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ronk01, Wiki requires reliable sources not PatW's opinion. Here's the link Rainer [5].

My opinions aside, Ronk is right to express concern about the lack of reference to Prem Rawat's claims to be God. Momento's response 'There is no discussion' is his way of saying 'case closed' 'we won'. There has been, since the inception of the article, consistent ongoing discussion of this topic which can be easily resurrected. There are reliable sources that report, quite correctly, that PR spoke "out of both sides of his mouth" about being God. It is an important issue that keeps coming up and which followers have successfully minimised after many revisions. Understandably there is reluctance to reopen this debate as most of us are tired of it. However if Ronk and others see fit to reopen the issue I would support that in principle. PatW (talk) 09:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I should have asked- Momento what do you mean by your response above: "There is no discussion"? PatW (talk)

There is no discussion for anyone to "provide an account of". Your rhetorical discussion is your opinion, not a summary of reliable sources.Momento (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Momento, there is a legitimate argument here, for both sides, please do not disregard the documentary Lord of the Universe which gave evidence for both sides. Ronk01 (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Where did I disregard LOTU?Momento (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

LOTU gives some very good evidence for Prem Rawat stating (or at least strongly implying) that he is god. At the same time, the film also gives direct evidence that he does not claim deity, so there is a valid discussion here, and I believe that this is truly what is at the heart of the controversy. The debate over the sentence in question is simply a superficial reflection of this underlying debate. I hate to make matters worse than they were when I came here, but I think we need to come to a consensus regarding coverage of autodefication claims before we can settel down to nitpicking every individual sentence of the article. Ronk01 (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous articles in Wikipedia covering issues and people about which there are strong and opposing views. And Wiki policy is not to pick sides but to edit impartially. You are now saying that you cannot resolve a simple issue of common Wiki practice without deciding which way you want to think? Perhaps you should resign from the Mediation Cabal because you have lost sight of its objectives.Momento (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Momento, you have a pattern of inviting third parties to back you up over pro-Rawat revisions but then showing your teeth when they investigate the history and duly observe cracks in the foundations on which you are building the pretence of a stable article. Isn't it about time you were a little more open to the possibility that these people (who are far more impartial observers than either you or I) might actually be right? At least they deserve more respect than you show. PatW (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand me, I am trying to say (in the most impartial way possible) that Prem Rawat's alleged claims of deity need to be discussed in the article in some detail, since the information is out there, and Wikipedia seems to simply ignore it. Additionally, my personal views of Prem Rawat are not public, and will remain so for the sake of this mediation. By the way Momento, I have been asked by an Admin to mediate this article long-term. Ronk01 (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Which administrator has the authority to decide that you should mediate this article long term?Momento (talk) 10:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Every editor has the authority to make a request. Long term mediation is apparently needed for this topic, though it was pretty quiet until recently. If it doesn't work out with Ronk01 then I suggest making a request of the WP:MEDCOM.   Will Beback  talk  10:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Clearly true, Will, but Ronk seems to believe that coming from an administrator (whoever he/she might be) the request carries more authority. It now seems clear that you were right about the floodgates thing. For some months, the article has met the unofficial criterion for editor agreement: "An article that may not be what any editor might have written themselves, but with which they all can live." I can now see another pretty rotten couple of years ahead where we waste a great deal of time resurrecting a bunch of long-dead controversies, to end up in approximately the same place. Those who do not like the current version (and in some large respects I am one) might do well to consider that rigorous application of Wikipedia principles led to it, especially regarding the use of the best sources. In the last few months, we have seen the standards for a living biography tighten, if anything. Let us now leave "reasonably OK" alone and set about more productive tasks. Yes? Rumiton (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes!   Will Beback  talk  11:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

To Rumiton, the current article has some glaring errors that don't conform to "rigorous application of Wikipedia principles". The lead sentence in question is an obvious one. I, naively, thought there would be unanimous agreement to improve the article by removing it, since Wiki clearly says "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". But from the moment I suggested rectifying this error, instead of a collegial acceptance of Wiki principles and therefore recognition that it should be removed, I have been personally attacked and the discussion sidetracked. I too can see "another pretty rotten couple of years ahead" if this attitude is allowed to continue. But I, for one, will not stop editing this article because some editors might ignore Wiki principles, policies and guidelines. I will do as I have done in this case, which is propose changes based on Wiki principles, policies and guidelines and make every effort to ensure that they are followed. If editors do not respect this approach I will ask MedCom or ArbCom to intervene. Wiki articles should not become "no go zones" because legitimate editing is stonewalled and editors attacked. This position should be welcomed by all editors.Momento (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This article has had a rather turbulent history, with at least two ArbComs, multiple mediations both formal and informal, and likely countless RfC's and other forms of third party involvement. Clearly editors who can cause this havoc need long-term mediation, whether by myself, or by an official mediator. (Believe me, if I thought I could, I would drop this case in a heartbeat) And at this time, until another mediator can be found (I reccomend, like Will, that you go to MEDCOM) I will have to stay here. Please note that above, I have posted my reccomendations for this specific case, and am answering questions regarding only that. Ronk01 (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you please tell us which administrator has the authority to decide that you should mediate this article long term? Since it is extraordinary that one administrator can tell an editor, who would "would drop this case in a heartbeat", that they must mediate it. And who can make decisions about an article under probation without consultation with any other editors.Momento (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I must clear up some misconceptions, first, I was not ordered to mediate, I will only be here until another mediatior can be brought in. Second, any uninvolved Administrator can enforce topic bans on disruptive editors here without any form of editor consultation, as per ArbCom. O hope that helps. Ronk01 (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really. You said you were "asked by an Admin to mediate this article long-term" and I asked "who has the authority to do that?", which you have not answered. Clearly you feel compelled to comply with that request because you "would drop this case in a heartbeat" but "you have to stay here"! I don't think it fair that you can be compelled to do something you don't want to do? And I didn't ask whether an "Administrator can enforce topic bans on disruptive editors here without any form of editor consultation", I know that. So I ask again "which administrator asked you to mediate this article long term"? And are you now saying that this anonymous admin is able to appoint a mediator, no one has asked for, who we are supposed to accept?Momento (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not able to disclose the identity of the individual who asked me to mediate this article as they do not wish to become embroiled in this mess. Secondly, I repeat that I am only here until another mediator can replace me, as there seems to be consensus that mediation is needed, though there appear to be only two or three editors who appear to oppose my mediation here. By the way, there are plently of people who can make decisions about articles under probation without editor consultation. Ronk01 (talk) 05:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

An anonymous admin who doesn't want to get embroiled calling the shots! Your account being hacked! I suggest you check with ArbCom whether an anonymous admin can impose long term mediation on this article.Momento (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how this discussion is bringing the parties any closer to consensus. No one here disagrees that mediation is needed. In fact, it was Momento who made the request. Off-topic discussions about "who said what to whom" should go somewhere else. The mediation talk page, perhaps.   Will Beback  talk  11:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus for "long term mediation" which is what Ronk01 and I are discussing. And my request was for mediation about one specific sentence which has been done. I would appreciate you retracting the inference that I "requested the long term mediation" that Ronk01 and I are discussing. And I would appreciate your view as to whether an anonymous admin can compel Ronk01 to mediate this article.Momento (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Did I miss something? Is the Aldridge dispute settled?   Will Beback  talk  23:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me repeat my self Will. You state above that I "made the request" for the "long term mediation" Ronk01 and I were discussing. This isn't true. So I would like you to retract that false claim.Momento (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a mis-understanding here, Momento. I interpreted your above paragraph the same way as Will. You wrote "And my request was for mediation about one specific sentence which has been done.", which I interpreted as meaning that you in your opinion the mediation has been completed/settled. If this isn't the case, the please clarify. Savlonn (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This page is for discussions of improvements to the article. If you want to talk about the mediation itself, there's a page for that. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-05-22/prem rawat   Will Beback  talk  12:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ronk01 wrote "I am ending the mediation for the sentence, I believe that moving the sentence (providing that it is properly cleaned up) would be a suitable compromise". And for the third time Will retract your false claim.12:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

So we're all done? If so, thanks everyone for their efforts, and especially Ronk01 for his mediation. Moving forward, I suggest that we request formal mediation by the Mediation Committee if there are any further disputes.   Will Beback  talk  20:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The sentence to be cleaned up

I have moved the sentence here from the lead for cleaning up before placing it in the "Teaching" section. Momento (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

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.

If this is still in dispute I'd like to wait pending the start of formal mediation.   Will Beback  talk  22:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Will, didn't you write "So we're all done? If so, thanks everyone for their efforts, and especially Ronk01 for his mediation". And wasn't his decision that he is ending the mediation into the sentence and his decision, of the three options we voted on (keep, remove or move to the teaching section) was to "move the sentence (providing that it is properly cleaned up)"! So now you have decided it isn't going to be moved or cleaned up. That days of mediation and discussion are now going to be ignored!Momento (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The sentence wasn't "cleaned up" and moved, it was deleted.   Will Beback  talk  22:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

At the *very* least, it should be cleaned up and moved, via consensus, before it's deleted. That was a ridiculous edit attempt. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 22:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That was quick. We couldn't reach consensus and that's why we had mediation. I have asked Ronk01 to clarify.Momento (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if my silence over the last week was taken as acquiescence to everything that's been going on, I forgot to throw up an "On Holiday" flag, but I've been away, scuba diving in Cozumel for a week, and somehow didn't feel overly compelled to check in here while I was gone, go figure! -- Maelefique ^(talk) 23:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, until the sentence is cleaned up, it needs to remain in the lead. If the content is still in dispute, I am going to refer this to formal mediation. Ronk01 (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Please refer this to formal mediation.Momento (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Before I do that, I would like a majority of participants to agree to formal mediation, please vote agree, or disagree below. 2/3 majority required. Ronk01 (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Did I just blink and miss Momento's latest effort to clean-up this sentence, or is he just giving up and wanting to move directly to mediation? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 04:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely don't understand what that sentence is intending to say. How can it ever be "cleaned up"? As far as I can see, and I have been watching Prem Rawat pretty closely for quite a long time, he has always said that peace could only come to the world one individual at a time. Maybe the source got confused about the 1970's "World Peace Tours", which were, I would suggest, Peace Tours that took him around the World, rather than tours intended to pacify the warring nations. Rumiton (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Our job is not to watch the subject closely and then report on our findings. Our job is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. If you'd like to re-read the sources and come up with a better summary that'd be fine.   Will Beback  talk  11:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Will, I do understand that. The problem is that I don't know of any other source that has described such a shift in emphasis. Do you know of any that do? Rumiton (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be going in a circle. Aldridge is a scholar published by a reputable publishing house. We don't need other sources to confirm what he says. He has a significant point of view and we're only devoting a sentence to it. We can summarize other sources in other sentences. Let's just focus on what this source says about this subject. As if we haven't spent enough time on this already...   Will Beback  talk  11:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I entirely agree, I am thoroughly sick of it myself. And I am not being wilfully obtuse, I just can't understand what Aldridge meant. Really, I don't much care. It's only one small, albeit incomprehensible sentence. I would rather see it discarded, for the benefit of the article, and I don't see why keeping it seems such a big point, but if it is, so be it. Rumiton (talk) 11:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who said what. A sentence shouldn't be in the lead if it introduces material that isn't presented in the article. End of story.Momento (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we've already dealt with that part - the "move". Now we're discussing the "cleanup".   Will Beback  talk  12:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

But how, Will? How? If you can tell me what you believe Aldridge meant by his statement, we can both try to produce it in readable English. Deal? Rumiton (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of Aldridge was the Rawat has changed his focus from world peace, to "inner peace" simple as that. Ronk01 (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is certainly simple. But all sources tell us that from an early age he was teaching the same techniques of inner peace that his father taught him. He continued to teach them upon his arrival in the west, and he has never changed them. Rumiton (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

So if that is indeed what Aldridge is saying, then it is an extraordinary claim and should be looked at very carefully. (I will be away on a holiday for a couple of days, starting now. Bye.) Rumiton (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

We are indeed going in circles. Please review the sources listed at Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 43#World peace. There is nothing "extraordinary" in the claim that Guru Maharaj Ji was characterized as promising world peace in the early 1970s.   Will Beback  talk  19:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps then, we might say that he has gone through three phases, an initial "inner peace" phase in his early years, then a "Worldn Peace" phase in the late 60's, 70's and early 80's, and then another "Inner Peace" phase from the Mid 80's to present. This seems to hold to avalible evidence and sourcing, unless I am seeing this differently. Ronk01 (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Aldridge, round #346

Here's the relevant passage from Aldridge. (I had to type damn thing in, so folks had better be appreciative) Note that he goes into detail about how the movement's message changed, and used some categories that are widely used in the scholarly field. The last passage is the one we're actually summarizing.

• The categories world-rejecting, world-affirming, and world-accommodating are put forward as ideal types. Any given religious movement may well exhibit features of more than one type, and this can give rise to bitter internal conflicts. One example is the Divine Light Mission, which originated in India in the 1930s as part of the Radhasoami movement, an offshoot of Sikhism. The DLM was consolidated as an independent movement in the 1960s, and brought to the West in 1971 by the founder's youngest son, the thirteen-year-old Guru Maharaj Ji. Initially, the movement stressed its world-rejecting, ascetic origin. It sought to recruit young people disillusioned with the counterculture. Devotees ('premies') were invited into the spartan and celibate communal life of the ashram, or 'premie house', where they would be instructed by senior practitioners known as 'mahatmas'. Guru Maharaj Ji was seen as a saviour, the Satguru or Perfect Master, who would usher in the millennium. But after the dismal failure of its sparsely attended Millennium '73 festival in the Houston Astrodome, the movement adopted a world-affirming position. It offered 'the Knowledge', in the form of techniques of meditation, to a diverse clientele who were not expected to join an ashram. The trappings of Asian faith were abandoned as the movement became overtly Westernized. [..] Prem Rawat claims to offer practical methods by which anyone can achieve spiritual tranquility. Originally he aspired to bring about world peace, but now he focuses on the needs of the individual, which he says take priority over the demands of society. Elan Vital has sought to move out of the spotlight of adverse publicity, and has gravitated towards the world-accommodating type of religious movement.
  • Alridge, Alan — Religion in the Contemporary World (2007) — p.59</ref>

Here's Blau (again - I had to type this in):

• The three day event... was said to herald "a thousand years of peace for people who want peace." The idea was that peace would come to the world as individuals experienced inner peace of "knowledge" of a source of energy inside them. To do this, they would have to use techniques taught by "disciples" of the guru... [..] But at a news conference Maharaj Ji, asked if here were a messiah, responded, "Please do not presume that. I am humble servant of God, trying to establish peace in the world."
  • Blau, Eleanor (November 12, 1973), "Guru's Followers Cheer 'Millennium' in Festivities in Astrodome", New York Times

Here is the first version posted by Pergamino/Jossi

• He is said to offer practical ways to achieve spiritual tranquillity by anyone; originally he aspired to bring about world peace, but now his focus is on the needs of individuals, which according to him take priority over societal demands.[6]

That version was almost a verbatim copy, so I rewrote it slightly:

• He says he offers practical ways to achieve spiritual tranquillity by anyone. Though he originally aspired to bring about world peace, he now places his attention on helping individuals rather than society.[7]

Pergamino reverted that change, and eventually altered it to read:

• He says he offers practical ways to achieve spiritual tranquillity by anyone. Though he originally aspired to bring about world peace, he now places his attention on helping individuals, which according to him takes priority over societal aims.

Then Momento added material from Blau. This is the current version:

• He says he offers practical ways to achieve spiritual tranquility by anyone. 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

I suggest we drop Blau and go back to the version I posted:

• He says he offers practical ways to achieve spiritual tranquility by anyone. Though he originally aspired to bring about world peace, he now places his attention on helping individuals rather than society.

That is close to the source, and I think it's intelligible. If we want to summarize Blau we can do so in a separate sentence. Any objections?   Will Beback  talk  19:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I object to the use of the "though", because it suggests a contradiction in substance, where in the original quote there is none. And thanks, Will, for your transcription effort, it does make things easier, I think.--Rainer P. (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The "though" is a replacement or paraphrase of the "but" in the original. At the risk of edging towards plagiarism, we can make it that much closer. And since this is apparently so controversial, at least on this talk page, we can even add attribution:

• According to sociologist Alan E. Aldridge, Rawat says he offers practical ways to achieve spiritual tranquility by anyone. He originally aspired to bring about world peace, but now he places his attention on helping individuals rather than society.

Better?   Will Beback  talk  20:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. And the second sentence should show that it is Alridge's understanding, and not be stated like an acknowledged fact. Perhaps something like: "...tranquility by anyone; originally aspiring to bring about world peace, he is said to now place his attention on helping individuals rather than society". And then there should follow a statement from another scholar (Geaves?), stressing the continuity of the teachings, for balance.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

We already cite Geaves 12 times in this article, which is already too much for some folks. If you want to cite him again, then start a fresh mediation for that. As for your other suggestion, we could put "he is said to" in front of every assertion in the article. It really doesn't add anything. If you're still worried that readers wil misunderstand the material, we can write:

• According to sociologist Alan E. Aldridge, Rawat says he offers practical ways to achieve spiritual tranquility by anyone. Aldridge writes that Rawat originally aspired to bring about world peace, but now he places his attention on helping individuals rather than society.

That makes it absolutely clear that this is Aldridge's opinion.   Will Beback  talk  20:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Do you agree that a balancing statement should be added?--Rainer P. (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No. There's no need to "balance" every sentence in the article. If, independently, there are other views that are significant we can discuss those separately. This thread is exclusively concerned with improving the Aldridge material. Are there any other comments about this draft?   Will Beback  talk  23:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

While I won't be for long, I am still mediating this article, and I am going to ask for a vote on Will's proposition, simply vote yes or no. Thank you. Ronk01 (talk) 01:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can live with that. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 06:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, so do I.--Rainer P. (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes.   Will Beback  talk  06:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No. It's an exceptional claim and needs exceptional sources, not just one. It is also UNDUE WEIGHT - the "Teachings" section doesn't state any individual's opinion and Aldridge shouldn't be given an entire sentence (out of 7) for his opinion.Momento (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The main problem I had was the implication that he developed a whole new ball game when World Peace proved harder to get going than he thought. The important thing is the fact that he has taught the inner peace techniques throughout, and I think that is clear now. Rumiton (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, strangely, it looks like we're going to have consensus here! High-fives! -- Maelefique ^(talk) 14:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, the sentence proposed by Will has near total consensus, please make the change as soon as possible. Ronk01 (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Done.   Will Beback  talk  21:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

er.. Yes ...sorry PatW (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm pleased the absurd sentence has finally been removed from the lead. But, as I pointed out weeks ago, we have now given one source a fifth of the teachings section to voice his unique perspective. The simple solution is to re-locate Adridge material to the "Teachings of Prem Rawat" article where it will be less intrusive and not so unbalanced.Momento (talk) 07:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

We've spent enough time to the issue. Since April 27, we've written over 20,000 words on this page, mostly connected to this 41-word passage. While a variety of views have been expressed in the past six weeks, the entire 16-thread discussion has been motivated by one editor. With the sole exception of that editor, we've all agreed on a revision that was intended to address the issues he raised. It's time to move on, preferably to other topics entirely. Personally, I resent the tendentious suggestion that we spend any more time on this matter.   Will Beback  talk  09:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

My apology for the late vote, not that it makes any difference at this stage. Having read through the discussion I think it would have been better to remove the sentence, but I'm glad to see that the matter has been resolved. --Zanthorp (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Congrats to those involved for a rare successful resolution to an issue on these articles! :)-- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

So you see it is not impossible.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

But was it worth the effort?   Will Beback  talk  00:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's like forging a samurai-blade. If it were only for decoration, all the work would seem exaggerated. But I believe this article has more than ornamental value, so I don't mind the hassle too much. There is always a chance for improvement, and this latest agreement needs not be the last.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Will, it was worth the effort. That sentence was open to misinterpretation, which was shown by Ronk's failed attempt at paraphrasing it and my failed attempt at understanding it. It was corrected and now conveys something important about a living subject's life and work. That's a good thing. Rumiton (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Other mediation efforts

Regarding formal mediation, if a truly even-handed mediator can be found I would be in favor of it. This person will distinguish him/herself by offending all parties equally (we are impossible to equally please.) Rumiton (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Placing prior conditions on mediation isn't helpful.   Will Beback  talk  11:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep these discussions separate.   Will Beback  talk  11:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think neutrality is an unreasonable precondition. I was just suggesting a method by which neutrality might be identified. Rumiton (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What method is that? Do we ask potential mediators to please try to offend everyone to see if they qualify? That sounds like a bad way to start mediation. ;)   Will Beback  talk  18:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If the article cannot get formal mediation, another option would be to re-post the case to the Mediation Cabal "cases awating mediators" docket. I will breif any new mediatior on the situation here. Ronk01 (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you just let him/her come with an open mind? Rumiton (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I have posted a request via email (form will not accept this article title) to MEDCOM for formal mediation on the grounds that the previous mediation was closed on the basis that the Project Prem Rawat WP:RAWAT would provide the structure within which editing of this and related articles would proceed, and as that is not how some editors are intent upon working, it is invitable that current impasse would arise. The logic must be for MEDCOM to once again take over the process and if that doesn't work then a return to Arbitration will be required. Once I have an acknowledgement from MEDCOM I'll put a notice on editors talk pages.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, Nick, MEDCOM cannot accept a request via email, since an RfFM is an official act, and all official acts must be conducted in open forum. Second Rumiton, when editors come in here with open minds, they are quickly swayed to one side or the other. Instead, they need to come in knowing what is facing them. Ronk01 (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Er yes, thanks for stating that Ronk ... and as and when someone explains what work around I should use, I'll do that, as it is I simply followed the instructions re:contact if the RfFM form wouldn't play ball --Nik Wright2 (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Instead, they need to come in knowing what is facing them. Not sure what to say about that. Seems rather untransparent. We'll see how it pans out. Rumiton (talk) 07:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, my name is not included in the WP:RAWAT members' list. Can I be? Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"This project page can be edited by all members. To become a member, please write a short message in the members section" = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Prem_Rawat#Members --Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

To join the project you have to know the secret handshake, or go through the initiation ;)   Will Beback  talk  10:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Request filed as Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat5. It will now be up to the MEDCOM whether to accept or reject the request.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Prem Rawat5. Four mediations and two ArbCom cases. Enough is enough. Nothing has changed in the last year or two. Let's try to leave the articles alone until there's an actual cause for editing.   Will Beback  talk  10:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

    I agree with the sentiment but I've no confidence that it will be universally shared, and if we are going to be faced with a commitment from some editors to work on the articles whatever the cost, then I'd rather we had a framework for sensible working. The only way I can see that happening is under permanent Mediation.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

    • Strongly Agree with Will here. --JN466 02:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Since my only purpose here was to mediate the sentence debate, which has been resolved, I will close the MEDCAB case. Goodbye all, and good luck. I will be going on a long Wikibreak, so I might take a while to respond to comments. Ronk01 (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous faults with this article. 1) The Charisma and Leadership" section, does any other "leader" have a section like this (The Pope, Obama, Pied Piper)? Anything of value in this section should be incorporated into the article. 2) "Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses"? Why is this in the lead? The only mention in the article is "Sociologist Stephen A. Kent wrote that as a 22-year-old hippie, he found Rawat's message to be banal and poorly delivered, though his companions spoke about it glowingly". At the very least it should be paired with the sentence above it - "He emphasizes a direct experience of transcendence, rather than a body of dogma.[5][10][11] and has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses,[7][12]"Momento (talk) 07:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Intellectual content" again?! We have discussed that material across 13 talk page archives.[8] Before even suggesting that we revisit that issue I'd request you please re-read all 13 sets of debates, and only raise it again if there's a significant point that hasn't already been discussed to death. Bringing up the same issues again and again is tendentious.   Will Beback  talk  09:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're not interested in discussing this article, you are free to leave.Momento (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're not interested in working within consensus, instead choosing to dredge up the exact same issues again in yet another attempt to make this your article, you're not only free to leave, personally, and with no ill will, I'd encourage it. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 18:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder - On April 27th I first proposed that the sentence be removed from the lead because "The idea of "world peace" or "societal aims" isn't referred to in the body of the article." After 5 weeks of delays, arguments and attacks my proposal was finally acted on. And now everyone is happy. Perhaps the next time I propose an edit all editors will look at the facts and see if there is any contravention of Wiki practices, policies or guidelines and act accordingly before arguing and attacking me based on POV issues.Momento (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No, on April 27 you said we should remove the sentence entirely. It was never your proposal to move the sentence, and you argued strenuous against that compromise.   Will Beback  talk  23:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ya, but Will, if that's what he thinks happened, and he's happy now, I'm happy to let him keep believing that's what happened too. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 00:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Really Will? I proposed removing it from the Lead but you said "I object to any changes to the lede. Is that clear?" Will Beback, 29 April. So I then proposed, in the spirit of collegiality, "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) But you rejected that as well and it has taken 5 weeks of obstruction and mediation for you to finally agree that it didn't belong in the lead. Diffs don't lie.Momento (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Gee, I guess I misunderstood your rejection of the compromise that we adopted, the compromise that you're now taking credit for. Whatever makes you happy.   Will Beback  talk  04:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read my previous post Will. It says in black and white that "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" but the compromise was rejected by you not me. And five weeks later my compromise was accepted. And your objection to removing the sentence was rejected.Momento (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

What colour is the sky in your world? This is exactly the kind of revisionist attempt at writing history that keeps me in this article, and will continue to do so. The only real question I have is if you actually believe what you just wrote is an accurate summary, but I don't think I can get an honest answer to that, so instead, I will just try and remain vigilant for further revisionist attempts on this article. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 22:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Umm...I don't think I can get an honest answer to that... Good faith, Maelefique, please. Good faith and deep breaths if you find them necessary, but alway good faith. Rumiton (talk) 09:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to extend AGF beyond its reasonable bounds, if an editor continually behaves disruptively other editors are not required to suspend dibelief, WP:DUCK applies.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Expressions like reasonable bounds, continually and disruptively can be very subjective. To be on the safe side we need to AGF at ALL times. Even when an editor has been suspended or banned, civility applies. Rumiton (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The facts- I flagged the sentence as being inappropriate. After five weeks of soul searching it is removed from the Lead. I'm sorry you're upset perhaps you can get over it outside Wiki.Momento (talk)

Sorry Rumiton, but as WP:AGF states, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence", so while I continue to assume good faith with your efforts, others have already proven that assumption to be false, at times, grossly so. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Rumiton if you are going to lecture other editors about WP policies and norms of behaviour, you'd best familiarise yourself with those policies and norms. If you had bothered to follow WP:DUCK you'd have read:

To call a spade a spade is to describe something clearly and directly. Rather than using oblique and obfuscating language, just "tell it like it is." Users too often cite policies, like our policy against personal attacks and our policy against incivility, not to protect themselves from personal attacks, but to protect their edits from review. Although editors who consistently engage in disruptive editing are disruptive editors, and editors who consistently vandalize are vandals, there is still a requirement for editors to be reasonably civil to each other. But being civil should not be confused with being friendly or courteous, let alone charitable or credulous.

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, it seems I have misundertstood the requirements. Next time (if there is one) that I am personally reviled by editors on this talk page I shall respond by describing them back in very clear, reasonably civil, but neither friendly nor courteous terms. We will see how this proceeds. Rumiton (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I am going to address each editor individually with my concerns: Momento, it's over with, the sentence was moved and cleaned with overwhelming consensus (only one objection) I have ceased to AGF with many of your posts, further disruption will be reported. Rumiton, NickWright2 is correct, AGF has limits. To all others, let us please move on to improving other areas of this article, or even better, leave good enough alone, and work on one of the other 3.2 million articles. No offense intended, just a bit frustrated. Ronk01 (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been asked to clarify my reccomendation, so here it is, about as clear as I can make it:

1. The sentence should be in the "Teachings" section, not the lead (Already done) 2. The sentence needed modification to be sutiable (done rather submilely by Will)

Since both of these have already been done, you can understand my confusion when Momento says that the sentence is still in the lead, which it is not (in fact, the last major live edit is Will's, when he implemented my reccomendation) Does some omne want to explain to my why Momento seems to think that the sentence is still in the lead? Ronk01 (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone explain his thinking?? My tongue is bleeding... -- Maelefique ^(talk) 22:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure he just misread the material, or is looking at an old version. Let's just let it drop.   Will Beback  talk  00:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about the request for clarification I put on your talk page, it was from June 6th when I removed the sentence from the Lead and placed it on this talk page for editing and it was reinserted by Will before he revised it and moved it to the teaching section. Momento (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, my talk page must be really messed up, since it just said that it was a new message today. Ronk01 (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You could get Wiki to look into the problems you have with your talk page or people hacking it.Momento (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Intention to Edit

There was no support for going back MEDCOM, largely on the basis that the majority of 'involved editors' want to leave the Rawat articles alone. However not every editor is committed to the hands off position. If we are to avoid months of purposeless discussion we need to have a clear understanding of what everyone's intentions are. My preference is to leave things as they are, but if there is going to be change then I want that change to be on the basis of sound logical consistent editing across all the Rawat article which IMO means firstly resolving all the issues about disputed sources, rather than pick and mix editing of single sentences. I therefore propose a vote:

Question 1: Assuming the agreement of all other involved editors. Do you agree to a six month editing moritorium of the Rawat articles ?

Yes.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No. I think the article is not bad at present, but if someone sees something that should be better, they should be able to start a discussion on it. Rumiton (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Question 2: In the event that there is not unanimous agreement on a moritorium, do you agree to a process of assessing disputed sources, as begun at WP:RAWAT as the first step in improving the Rawat articles ?

Yes.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No. I see WP:RAWAT has some wonderful advice on the need to avoid personal attacks and incivility, and it clearly says that admins may remove them, but I have found that mediators and admins do not have a good record for doing so, particularly when they are posted by the anti-Rawat faction (which I think they all have been.) Rumiton (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If editors can't answer yes to either both or at least question 2., then some alternative proposals are required.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Things are going well. What's all this open flood gates and worm cans? Feels a little over the top to me, after a little improvement. This is bound to be an excellent article, with all this incredible expertise. And I object firmly to denying Momento basic civility, as if he were outlawed. There is a consistent strain of more or less overt hostility from some editors towards him on this page, and nobody appears to care. We should not let this become a habit. I see the NPOV of some self-declared neutral editors compromised. I believe this should be discussed before we get ourselves maneuvered into any unnecessary anankastic hustle.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you there. There is an anti-Prem Rawat bias here which masquerades as neutrality. Anyone can say pretty much what they like about his supporters, but if you speak against his denigrators you get jumped on with shrill cries. Rumiton (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not true, I for one don't masquerade about being neutral. Plus your missing the obvious fact that this article has a history of the opposite - ie. if you spoke against Rawat supporters you got jumped on with shrill cries. Mensa or not you sound so confused.PatW (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you here Rumiton, please do not confuse my disdain for Momento's biased methods for any kind of statement about Rawat or his supporters. I still do not have a anti-Prem Rawat bias. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 19:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Alternative Proposals

I propose that all editors, but especially any future mediators or admins, try to get more experience as general Wikipedia editors, and see how things are conducted Wiki-wide, then bring their experience back to this article. Rumiton (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a forum

Has everyone noticed this? Please comply. Rumiton (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It would seem reasonable to delete comments that apply to that definition then. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 19:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

After Careful Observation...

Though the case regarding this artiicle closed some time ago, I have been watching this talk page with some interest, since I managed to get myself rather deeply involved during the mediation. Lately, I have noticed an uptick in the number of personal attacks, (on both sides) outright fact warring, and general confusion. Perhaps a Wikibreak? Ronk01 (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Current proposals

1) To remove the sentence "Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses,. There are three problems with this sentence. 1) there is no reference to "lack of intellectual content" in the article. 2) The only criticism of his speaking is one source's opinion ( "Sociologist Stephen A. Kent wrote that as a 22-year-old hippie, he found Rawat's message to be banal and poorly delivered, though his companions spoke about it glowingly".) And 3) you can't summarize one half of a sentence of put it prominently in the lead and ignore the other half. I suggest we remove it entirely.

2) Introduce Rawat's charisma in the lead with - "In the early 1970s the Divine Light Mission under Rawat's charismatic leadership was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. Momento (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

er.. that would be trying to remove the negative and only present the positive. As it stands the lead politely articulates the he had public appeal through his charisma compensating for his lack of intellectual rigor (to be less formal, a colloquial expression that you would be familar with would be to say that he was a bit of a wanker. This isn't my opinion of course, but a blunt way of making the point that you can't separate out the contrast between the lack of intellectual discourse and the charisma - it is this combination that is articulated.) Savlonn (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, if you look at "Charisma and Leadership" section you'll find seven sources that describe Rawat is charismatic or a charismatic leader. Only Schnabel makes a criticism of Rawat, and that is unrelated to charisma and compared to Osho, Schnabel says he is equally charismatic. As you said earlier, mention of Rawat's charisma belongs in the lead. The question is where to place it. Placing it with the DLM," the fastest growing new religious movement in the West", echoes Melton, Bromley and Pilarzyk who all refer to Rawat's charisma as being related to to the success of DLM.Momento (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

To remove from the lead the one reference to controversy that was so much of the reason for PR's general fame is something that I simply cannot agree with. To replace it with puffery about PR's charisma seems like POV pushing to me. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 20:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with POV, it is only to do with Wiki practices, guidelines and policies. We have all just agreed to remove Aldridge from the lead because the sentence didn't refer to anything in the article. The "intellectual content" sentence doesn't refer to anything in the article and should be removed also. Savlonn's proposal to add something about charisma is completely valid, it is a major section of the article. Seven sources are given that Rawat was "charismatic or a charismatic leader". It is impossible to avoid putting it in the lead. For what it's worth, I don't believe there should be a separate section for "Charisma and Leadership", all leaders are leaders, and most leaders have charisma..Momento (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that is what Savlonn is suggesting, and replacing a "negative" with a "positive" is pretty hard not to place in the realm of POV pushing still. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 20:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Savlonn brought up the fact that Charisma wasn't in the Lead. He may want to include Schnabel's comment about Rawat and Osho in the lead but that would be undue weight for a single source. But a whole section and seven sources refer to Rawat's Charisma. It can't not be in the lead.Momento (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Momento, it can't have escaped your attention that for years you have been constantly accused of POV pushing. At least you could have the decency to explain why you think you are are not POV pushing for once- and not couched in terms of 'Oh it's nothing to do with POV and all about Wiki practices' Pull the other one. Do you think everyone is stupid? You sound like you think you know much better than everyone else with your proclamations about 'This has to go etc.' Do you not see how your incessant insistence that it is nothing to do about POV and more about Wiki Guidelines etc. is just a very transparent, puerile distraction from you actually responding properly to what people like Maelefique actually say to you. You are always trying to 'replace a negative with a positive'. Let's hear you argue why that is not POV pushing by definition, instead of rudely ignoring the accusations and ALWAYS responding with this stuck-record, Wikilawyering bluster. The fact that it MUST be blatantly obvious to you that you ARE POV pushing makes your denials sound like you're just laughing at everyone's inability to stop you which is pretty damn rude. So why not actually respond for once if you want to gain goodwill. Maybe you should be a whole lot more honest about your motivation if you want people to consider you someone who listens rather than just does all the talking. Since you are a big-time admirer and follower of Prem Rawat why exactly is your habit of always replacing a negative with a positive not most likely to involve a fair amount of POV pushing? Ever heard of Occams Razor? If it acts like a rabbit, looks like a rabbit, utterly conforms in every way to being a Rabbit - it probably is a rabbit. Why should anyone think you are not a rabbit as it were? And also, since you are so good at discerning what Wiki practices, guidelines and policies mean - why do you never exercise that understanding to argue for criticisms of Rawat to be included?PatW (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• For the record, I strongly oppose further changes to the lead, and the article in general, until there is some news to report. WP:LEAD is a guideline, and there is no requirement to follow it slavishly. We accommodated the principle concern of Momento's - the Aldridge sentence. Let's not engage in a piece-by-piece re-write of the intro, especially not one that ignores the tens of thousands of words already written on these talk and mediation pages.   Will Beback  talk  21:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not making changes for the sake of it Will. Many editors here had a year to improve this article but no one cared that two important aspects of the lead were completely ignored. One is that significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article (Aldridge and "intellectual content") and two, the lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article (Charisma). Also, the out of chronology meaningless statement about "established in" we have already fixed. Removing the "established in" and Aldridge has greatly improved the lead and thus the article. Removing "intellectual content" and adding "Charisma" will also be a significant improvement. And once that is done, I think we can all agree that "for leading an opulent lifestyle" is not a fair summation of Hunt's "critics have focused on what appears to be his opulent lifestyle". When these glaring errors are fixed, the lead will be a true representation of the article and I'll will be happy with that. There is enough material in the article, some of it badly written, some of it undue weight and some just absurd but at least the reader will find enough there to form their own opinion. What is unacceptable to me is that the lead presents a distorted view on an article that has taken years of wrangling to create. If you're happy/satisfied/able to accept the article, you should be happy/satisfied/able to accept the lead reflecting it. Momento (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with the state of the entire article. It has been stable for nearly a year. You were here for the vast majority of the drafting, and it appears you do not accept the consensuses which were achieved with such difficulty. If you want to keep making changes which overturn previous consensuses then there may have to be formal mediation.   Will Beback  talk  00:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It may appear to you Will that "I do not accept the consensuses" but in the last two months nine editors (including you) have agreed to overturn "previous consensus" and reach a "new consensus" to change this article. And it is entirely reasonable to suggests that errors be fixed. Three different errors have been pointed out by different editors and in each case consensus was achieved to correct them.There was consensus to change Alridge (proposed by me), "universally accepted" (proposed by Revera) and "established in" (proposed by you and Rumiton) because they were identified as errors. I see no reason why consensus shouldn't be reached to change these other obvious errors. The "established in" error was easily fixed in a few days as was the "universally" error. I didn't bring up "Charisma" but once Savlonn pointed it out, it's an obvious error. There's an entire section on "Charisma and Leadership" and it should be mentioned in the Lead. Who can disagree with that? It should be an easy fix. Let's go beyond partisan editing and follow established Wiki practices. As I wrote above, I'm happy that a reader can get enough information from the article to draw their own conclusions but what isn't fair is that the current lead does not accurately represent the article and it should. Momento (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain how the previous discussions of this material we faulty, and what new insight you're bringing? Or is this just a rehash of old arguments?   Will Beback  talk  01:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe there has been any discussion about including a reference to "Charisma" in the Lead, it has just been overlooked.Momento (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Discuss one thing at a time.   Will Beback  talk  02:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's talk about "Charisma". This article has entire section devoted to explaining that Rawat was described as a "Charismatic Leader". That description should be in the Lead. Any objections?Momento (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note that in addition to all of the discussion on this talk page, we also spent over 18,000 discussing it at User talk:Steven Zhang/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal4. I don't think we should be discussing further new changes until we've all re-read the previous discussions, and have a new mediation effort in place.   Will Beback  talk  02:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what others say about changing the lead to include a description of Rawat as a "Charismatic Leader". I'm sure the great majority will agree it should go in.Momento (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

So you want to discuss the Charisma issue first? Please start a thread for it, and include a review of previous discussions.   Will Beback  talk  02:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I also object. Any changes in the lead would need to be done with consensus, and it's funny how "it can't not be in the lead" now, but why didn't you address this over a year ago if it was so obvious? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 03:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Like you I never noticed it. But now that Savlonn has pointed it out, we should fix it. Momento (talk) 06:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well if we all never noticed it, again, I guess it isn't as obvious as you're claiming now. But more importantly, and also again, if you re-read what Savlonn is saying, I think you'll see you've made a mistake, he's disagreeing with your point entirely, not advocating it. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I was not agreeing with Momento, but was making a point that the the lead should not be changed, as removing criticism would change the balance and thus the POV of the article; something that would not gain consensus. At a higher level, I share the feeling that the article at the moment works but only as a house of cards. As such, any significant changes (i.e. any changes to the lead) would need to be 'bottom up'; that is driven by consensus from a review of the underlying reference material. Perhaps there is place for a reference to charisma in the lead in future, but only if a) it is within the context of his lack of intellectual discourse and b) part of a re-write AFTER a review and consensus of the outstanding issues regarding the lead, including reference to cult leadership (there is a strong positive correlation of cult leaders having a lot of charisma). However, this ad-hoc discussion is not the framework required to sort this out. I suggest that the project pages we created last year would be an appropriate forum for this work as it would enable the appropriate review framework to be created. Savlonn (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of "charisma" you say above that your point was "that the the lead should not be changed"? But you wrote "if you recall the previous mediation, we spent weeks discussing how best to represent the charismatic, as opposed to intellectual nature of his work. As you are aware, there is a lot of reference material around this point, so absolutely it belongs in the lead as a summary of the many points in article covering this notable area". Momento (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Charisma

WP:Lead says "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". And as has been pointed out the "Charisma and Leadership" section is an important section, it contains seven sources that describe Rawat is charismatic or a charismatic leader. Only Schnabel makes a criticism of Rawat, and that is unrelated to charisma and compared to Osho, Schnabel says he is equally charismatic. If we wish to follow standard Wiki practice, mention of Rawat's charisma belongs in the lead. The question is where to place it. Placing it with the DLM," the fastest growing new religious movement in the West", echoes Melton, Bromley and Pilarzyk who all refer to Rawat's charisma as being related to to the success of DLM. As in - "In the early 1970s the Divine Light Mission, under Rawat's charismatic leadership, was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West".Momento (talk) 06:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

How about: "Rawat has been characterized as a charismatic leader" (adding footnotes), positioned in front of: ...Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses?--Rainer P. (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I could agree to something like this, but only in the form of "Rawat has been characterized as a Charismatic Leader and has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses." -- Maelefique ^(talk) 18:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the “opulent lifestyle” has been the object of criticism far more often than “lack of intellectual content”, which has been stated only by one author. So we could handle that part of the quote like the Aldridge quote and put it into “Charisma and leadership”, where all the charisma stuff already stands, and assign it to Hunt, as nobody else said that. So in the lede it could say: "Rawat has been characterized as a Charismatic Leader. He has been criticized for an opulent lifestyle" (no and between the two phrases, as they belong to different categories and should not be connected by an enumerative word), because that’s what the article says in the body, and quote Hunt for one opinion later in the article.--Rainer P. (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a faulty assessment. The intellectual content issue is supported by three sources. Further, it has been in the intro for years, and has been discussed at enormous length and previously agreed to by parties including Momento and Rainer P.[9] The sniping at this long-settled material is approaching tendentiousness.   Will Beback  talk  21:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh sorry. We learn (that is, I think I do). I don't know about the other 2 sources, are they mentioned in the article? And please let's try and keep good faith, not get edgy or agitated.--Rainer P. (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, this material has been discussed extensively in the past, including discussions of which you've been a part. Raising the same issues year after year is disruptive and tendentious. Please read the dozen threads we've had on this topic already before demanding new changes.   Will Beback  talk  23:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Mommento's proposals are apparently based on ignorance of what sociologists mean by charisma -and his failure to reference (as has already been requested of him several times)on this talk page the previous extensive discussions on these issues is bordering on disruptive behaviour - here's the excellent work done by Francis: Schoken:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat/Proposal2. If any editor is intent upon revisting old arguments then the responsibility is on them to bring the previous discussions here, not on others to have endlessly re-argue dead ground. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No one needs to know what sociologists mean by "Charisma". All we need to know as editors is that there is a section in the article called "Charisma and Leadership" and therefore some reference should be made to it in the lead.Momento (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"No one needs to know what sociologists mean by "Charisma"." I take it back, Momento does have a sense of humour. The sociological definition is the predominant concept of these sources, and is therefore indispensable, to quote Momento, it can't not be in there. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 22:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Momento, the only way change is going to be made to the article is on the basis of consensus. What reasonable editor is going to accept the inclusion of misleading text into the article ? Words have common meaning, and also special meaning, the competent crafting of a text involves ensuring that there is no confusion between common and special meanings. The only use, supported by sources, of the word 'charisma' in relation to Rawat, is that that of the special meaning as used in Sociology. Where meaning needs to be defined in an article the usual practice is to make that definition at the first usage of the word or phrase needing definition. To define charisma as it is relevant to Rawat, the text adjacent to the first use of the word must link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_classification_of_authority. To not include those explicit links with explanatory text introducing the word 'charisma' is to create a deliberately misleading element within the article. Again what reasonable editor is going to accept a misleading edit ? There can not be consensus for such a change. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not simply textlink charisma?--Rainer P. (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

So what? There is a section "charisma and leadership" in the article, where Rawat is characterized charismatic. Why should it not be referred to in the lede? I see absolutely no need for all this strange Momento-bashing, that only seems to deflect attention from possible simple improvements.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Momento's idea of a 'simple improvement' the start of the 'anankastic hustle' you were warning of above? PatW (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No. And I think you know what anankastic means.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ashrams

'Anankastic? Your word not mine. I had to look it up...nice word. Very apt. So who were you applying it to then? Mr Rainer. Let me introduce you. You're the guy that tried to promote here the outright lie that 'living in the ashram was never a part of Rawat's teachings', 'it was never about lifestyle' . It's gonna be some party if you try and push that revisionist line again. Your lie was an insult to the hundreds of people who lived in Rawat's ashrams on his recommendation.PatW (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I did, too. I met the strangest people there. For some it seemed to mean an alternative to psychiatric help, I remember, and maybe it actually was. The word ashram means "shelter", that's what it was, and I agree that for some people life in the ashram was better than running around loose. And ashram living of course does not belong into the core of Rawat's teachings, as Knowledge is an inner experience and so on, you surely remember. And quit calling people liars. Hey, you "neutral" editors, where are you? The only insult I can find is directed towards me (if not against Momento or other supporters).--Rainer P. (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you're wrong again. You argued here that 'Ashram was not a part of Rawat's teachings'. You tried to promote that viewpoint and to get this article to reflect that notion. Go read the arguments on your own talk page where Jossi moved the discussion to! I repeat it is a particularly insidious lie to say that the ashram was not a highly significant part of Rawat's teaching and I am just calling 'a spade a spade'. You said it so please don't try and dilute that or wriggle out of it. Maybe it's an unintentional lie but it's a lie. Furthermore it's an incredibly insulting and infuriating lie to people who moved into those ashrams and dedicated years of their lives on Rawat's bullying insistence that if you were single you really should move into the ashram. (as he stated in Kissimee , Florida) If you want to open this can of worms - go right ahead and I'll provide links to prove it and you'll lose your case. Period. FYI you are utterly utterly wrong to say that 'ashram living of course does not belong into the core of Rawat's teachings' . I have a recording right here where he says that the 'ashram was the backbone of his work in the world'. Not a part of his core teaching? I don't think so. I heard him say in Rome ashram meeting that the Ashram premies were to him, the most important followers. He sent his instructors out around communities with the specific task to recruit single premies into his ashram. If you think that referring to your statement as a lie is insulting maybe you should consider what an enormous insult what you have said represents to a a lot of people who Rawat persiuaded to move into ashrams. I personally know dozens who I could bring here with statements to put the lie to that and who would be infuriated by your revisionist attitude. Don't mess with peoples history even if you have a different viewpoint.PatW (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's move discussion of the ashrams, if one is necessary, to a new thread.   Will Beback  talk  00:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a new discussion is necessary.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a subject that needs good sources for a neutral treatment. My recollection (yes, I know, I am not a rep source) is that he highly recommended committment to the practise of Knowledge (and still does) and that the ashram was the most committed place to be for a single person. I left at a gallop when things started to get weird, and I recall him saying in Melbourne, "The ashrams were supposed to help people in their lives, but these ashrams are wrecking people's lives." He still has them in India (I think.) Rumiton (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Thank you, but please don't anyone suggest that the Ashrams were not something Rawat personally wanted and instigated. What I hate is the pretence that it was just something he inherited from India and simply tried to do away with. This is pure unethical spin to cast him as if he was not responsible (since it proved as you rightly say, to be bad for people). The fact was that he personally oversaw the bringing back of ashrams in earnest in 1978, had numerous meetings advocating the importance of ashrams and did not formally dissolve them until around 1982. I was personally in the ashram from '78 through till 1981. All of this has been discussed before and broke down for the usual reasons. I still don't think these subjects are honestly or accurately covered in this article and I, along with many others, resent the dishonesty showed by editors here in the past about relegating Rawat from responsibility over all these things. It just looks like a co-ordinated attempt to protect Rawat from being accountable by rewriting history, twisting words and very selective inclusions and omissions. PatW (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If someone sees fit to move this to a new thread that's fine by me.PatW (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we have a problem, though as I said, we need good sources and they are hard to come by. He definitely recommended that single people live in an ashram, but I would baulk at saying they were part of his teachings. They were more something set up to allow people the freedom to focus on the things he really did teach -- the inner experience and outer useful service. And he was the one that decided they had failed their purpose and had to go. I recall that several of his Indian mahatmas resigned in protest and some westerners were outraged too. Rumiton (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You're tiptoeing around the subject. I'd like to discuss whether ashrams fall into the category of Teachings or not. Yes, Rawat (aka Maharaji) was definitely both the person who advocated Ashrams as a means to best practice his teachings and the only person who had the power to dissolve them. There's no surprise there (as you appear to imply) because, as you must know, nothing on this level of organisation ever happened without Rawat's personal sanction. As regards his core teachings - they have always been easily briefly summarised (as he did on almost every occasion) as Satsang, Service and Meditation. I don't believe Wikipedia should be wishy-washy when describing this. His teachings were ultimately about a 'meditational' experience but it would be extremely misleading not to include as 'teachings' some clear details of what else was involved. Obviously the wording has changed over time but, during the ashram period we are discussing, his teachings (in order that they were introduced to one) were:

• 1) He was a Satguru or 'Perfect Master' and as such, uniquely qualified to impart 'Knowledge'.
• 2) that students should practice Satsang, Service and Meditation. There were even a set of Rawats personal 'Commandments' that were introduced to one in the Initiation Ceremony.
• 3) Before students could meditate they needed to be initiated into Knowledge after an indeterminate preparatory period of listening to Satsang and doing Service to him. Initiates were deemed to be ready for initiation by a selection process usually carried out by one of his Mahatmas or Instructors (variously known as Initiators etc)
• 4) The actual initiation ceremony involved a) a spoken vow to Prem Rawat that you would not divulge the 4 techniques that you were shown and that you would stay in touch with Rawat through your devotional Satsang and Service and Meditation.

These things I would characterise as his core teachings. Subsequent to, and as a direct implication of their initiation, students were obliged to listen whenever possible to his Satsang (discourses). It was in these discourses he introduced another level to his teachings which was relevant to single people or those (married or single) who aspired to dedicate their lives to Him. I argue that the huge emphasis and value that he put on Ashrams as being the 'backbone of his work' from 1977-82 is inescapably something he 'taught'. Does not the advice he gave his followers during his 'Satsang' (which I hope we've established was an irrefutable mainstay of his teachings) amount to his 'teachings' albeit for a exclusive selection of aspiring devotees? Is the article clear that Rawat had different levels of teachings - indeed different teachings - depending on the level of your commitment? A parallel would be that all Church members don't have to be monks but for monks there are distinct teachings which involve different practices and lifestyle. It is unbelievable that premies here should suggest that Rawat did not teach a lifestyle. His teachings clearly did involve a lifestyle change for the hundreds who were taught to believe that to be a closer devotee you should surrrender your life to him in the ashram. Where did they get this idea? Not from one of his Indian Mahatmas or a reluctantly inherited tradition (as the party line now goes) , but from Rawats satsangs up from 1977 until 1982.PatW (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I also would like Service, Satsang and Meditation to appear in the article. We had a discussion on this some time ago, but unfortunately none of the available sources picked up on this simple formula, and we couldn't put it in the article without them. I think it's true the ashram lifestyle was held up as an ideal, but only in a relative way. Nothing was different there, just more intensive. A person receiving Knowledge was encouraged to make Knowledge (SS and M) as big a focus in their life as they felt able to, and the ashrams were there as a kind of pure inspiration. I take Surrender for a synonym for Focus -- get rid of the extraneous stuff. And he was considered the embodiment of the experience. That one will always produce difficulties. Rumiton (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Rumiton. Ashrams aren't part of his teachings, they are part of the DLM article.Momento (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

OK Momento, with regard to this matter please answer this- Who had more to do with advocating the ashram commitment - Prem Rawat or DLM?PatW (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

To Rumiton: Teachings, like SSM, belong in the "Teachings" article.

Re: Ashrams - Note that we've discussed the ashrams many times in the past.

• Talk:Divine Light Mission/Archive 2#Ashrams
• Talk:Divine Light Mission/Archive 2#Ashram section
• Talk:Divine Light Mission/Archive 4#Ashrams
• Talk:Divine Light Mission#Split Ashram Closure from Name Change > new section
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 9#Ashrams
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 18#Momento's edit re: Ashram
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 23#Further discussion
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 24#PATW's EDITS TO PROPOSED ARTICLE
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 26#Coming of Age - Encouragement to leave the ashrams?
• Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 32#"In the early 1980s... Prem Rawat abandoned his "almost divine status as guru".

That's just a partial list. Please try not to cover the same ground again.   Will Beback  talk  23:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

See also: Talk:Divine Light Mission/Ashrams. If anyone finds additional sources on the topic please add excerpts there.   Will Beback  talk  23:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

To Rumiton: Teachings, like SSM, belong in the "Teachings" article. Yes I agree, but have any sources been found that talk about them? Rumiton (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me Will but the whole premise of my thrust here (and on all those old discussions you linked to) is that the ashrams are very carefully 'unlinked' from having anything to do with Prem Rawat here and all controversial stuff like Ashrams etc are purposefully moved to the DLM article so as to imply Rawat had no responsibility for them. Please do 2 things. *1) Search in Prem Rawat article and note that the only mention of Rawat in connection with ashrams is to say he closed them down (considerately). And the suggestion is that in 1977 people flocked back into them just because he wore his Krishna costume! *2) Let's start by getting a straight answer out of Momento to my unanswered question :

Who had more to do with advocating the ashram commitment in 1977 - Prem Rawat or DLM? If the answer is Prem Rawat then why is it only covered in DLM? PatW (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• And Will & everyone else - what do you think is the answer to that question?PatW (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Pat, but the question isn't relevant here. Whether you know something personally to be true or not can't really help us too much in this article, unless it points us to some valid sources that can back-up what you're saying. Show me some sources that include the information you'd like to discuss and I'm sure we can all hash those things out. But until then, Momento doesn't have to give you "a straight answer" to anything (and hey, why would he start now? ;) ). -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

OK here's one for a start from Price, Maeve, The Divine Light Mission as a social organization. Sociological Review, 27(1979)

• A further example of erratic policy changes is Maharaj Ji's attitude towards the ashrams. In 1976, Maharaj Ji suggested that ashrams were retreats, or hothouses for premies who could not cope with the rigours of living in the everyday world. It was time, he said, for asharam premies to face the world and live as ordinary premies in the community. The direction was part of a policy which had been slowly developing for a long time, of weakening the powers of the National Office and the privileges of ashram premies (who received free passage and entrance to festivals) and putting more, albeit diffuse, power into the local premie communities.

The leader now appears to be changing his mind. In Britain, plans are being made to open a few ashrams for premies who wish to live a devotional life and it is intended that an initiator will reside in each ashram and look after the spiritual welfare of the local community. It would seem in fact that the ashrams acted as a pivot for the mission's stability and this is now being appreciated.

And another...from Geaves, Ron. "Globalization, charisma, innovation, and tradition: An exploration of the transformations in the organisational vehicles for the transmission of the teachings of Prem Rawat (Maharaji)" in Journal of Alternative Spiritualities and New Age Studies - Volume 2, 2006, ISBN 978-1-4196-2696-5, pp. 44-62.

• The period from 1977 to 1982 was marked by a re-opening of the ashrams and a series of international events in which Prem Rawat inspired personal loyalty and devotion from the already committed through a number of highly charismatic appearances in which he would dance on stage.

But we all know that Geaves is a major pro Prem Rawat speaker (he even appears in Rawat's organisations videos giving his 'professorial' support) So why not use some material from Mike Finch's book which describes the second ashram period very fully or elsewhere? I'm sure there's more sources to be found. Check this critical view: http://www.prem-rawat-bio.org/ashrams.html PatW (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Momento

Momento, up until now, I have had doubts regarding multiple comments by others that you are "POV pushing" but after reading some of your recent comments I am starting to lean towards their side on of this. It would appear that your are attempting to effectively scrub the article of negative fact and opinon, as the majority of Wikipedia users read the lead section only, this is the only exposure to the article that they will get. If you can give justification for this, I would appreciate it, otherwise, I would ask that you restrict your actions on all Prem Rawat articles to the Talk namespace only. In my opinion, "intelectual content" and "opulent lifestlye" belong in the lead, along with a sentence or two about charisma (perhaps after the "intelectual content" sentence) Ronk01 (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

So you also think "charisma" should be in the lead. Perhaps then you can explain why my suggestion to put it in is met with such hostility?Momento (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely I think "charisma" should be in the lead, it is a major part of Rawat's personality, character, and the success of the DLM (now EV)and has its own section in the article, but "intelectual content belongs there to. Ronk01 (talk) 01:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Which charisma are you talking about? The "charisma" that Momento wants to introduce, or the kind that is meant by the sources, which is the sociological definition, which Momento already has said above that people do not need to know?-- Maelefique ^(talk) 01:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I refer to the charisma that the sources support.Ronk01 (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

And since three of the seven sources link Rawat's "charisma" with the rapid expansion of the DLM the obvious place to insert it is "In the early 1970s the Divine Light Mission, under Rawat's charismatic leadership, was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West".Momento (talk) 07:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Rainer has made a good suggestion to text link "charisma" as - "In the early 1970s the Divine Light Mission, under Rawat's charismatic leadership, was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West". I trust this solves the last issue stopping this edit.Momento (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Only one of those types of authority is relevant here. The correct link, as I stated above is Charismatic Leader. Also, I object to the removal of the opulent/intellectual sentence. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 05:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You can work it out with Nik, he wants a link to Tripartite classification of authority and Max Weber. I think Charismatic_authority is better. .Momento (talk) 08:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I've read the Tripartite article, and in my opinion it's not terribly well written, and over 80% of it has nothing to do with Prem Rawat's style of leadership, serving only to confuse a reader who went there following the link. It's also somewhat too technical for what we need. The link I provided talks only about the third of the Tripartite that relates to Prem Rawat. When we have a choice between 2 articles, one of which mentions what we want, and one of which discusses solely what we are talking about, it seems silly to choose the former and so, I can't agree to it. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, so can you please convince Nik, he doesn't listen to me.Momento (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

To what part of the article body does the intellectual content bit in the lede exactly relate? Are we having the same situation as with the Aldridge quote?--Rainer P. (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

We're discussing the "charisma" material now. Let's leave the "intellectual content" to different threads. Though that material has been discussed so many times over the years that this is becoming absurd.   Will Beback  talk  11:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I found the Tripartite article pretty much unreadable, and the article on Max Weber not much better. To summarize as best as I can; Weber seems to be saying that authority within a group often starts with the group appointing a leader. At this stage, the leader's perceived personal qualities (which may be considered God-given) are the reason for his appointment. But over time the leader may experience difficulties in maintaining the respect of the group, and other factors will then have to prevail if the group is to continue. I have to admit to a certain personal disdain for what I see as sociological pomposity, but if this is all Weber is really saying I would question whether it adds anything of serious value to the article. Rumiton (talk) 10:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The whole "Charisma" section is absurd. You may as well put in a section "Diet" and put everything you can find about what Rawat eats "Time magazine says Rawat eats ice cream". But since there's zero chance of having it removed, something has to go in the lead.Momento (talk) 11:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Rumiton that the Tripartite article is pretty unreadable, but again, for the third time, I think this is the correct link and it is readable and relevant. As for whether Weber's idea belongs, since it is, according to the article, widely accepted by sociologists, I would think it would be a little bit arrogant to assume we know more than they do in their field of study, so if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me. Further, it is the type of charisma referred to by the experts we have quoted, so it would be wrong to remove it and leave the reader with the wrong definition of charisma. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless there are any objections I will insert "charisma" into the lead like this ""In the early 1970s the Divine Light Mission, under Rawat's charismatic leadership, was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West". With "charisma" linking to the "Charismatic authority" article.Momento (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I object and have already made my reasons clear. As previously stated, I do agree that there is a good case for mentioning charisma in the lead, but only within the context of his lack of intellectual rigor, which you have not done. Also, as stated previously my objection to any significant changes in the lead until the underlying issues have been resolved still stands. Savlonn (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The objections should be based on Wiki policies or guidelines not on your personal wish. Only one source out of seven links Rawat's "charisma" with "intellectual rigour" so to put it in the lead would be WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. In any case Schnabel's "intellectual" opinion comes in a comparison with Osho and therefore is relative not absolute.Momento (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I also object for all the reasons that have already been mentioned, but in brief, deliberately attempting to mislead the reader is a non-starter for me. Regardless, it's not up to us to convince you not to change the lead, it is up to you to convince us that you have a good enough reason to change something that's been laboriously picked through many times before. Without that, you have no consensus, and your attempts to change the lead will be reverted. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 01:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Who exactly is attempting to mislead the reader? This article has an entire section devoted to "Charisma and Leadership". Seven individual sources describe Rawat as having "charisma" or being "charismatic". The edit I proposed links to "Charismatic Authority" as you proposed. Wiki:Lead says "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". Omitting mention of an entire section of the article is misleading.Momento (talk) 06:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is this discussion not taking place under the section dedicated to Charisma - this section was started specifically to address Mommento's behaviour; on which note: Momento the construction you propose has no basis in any of the sources and your arguments appear wilfully ignorant of the sociological territory on which the bulk of this article relies. This endless stream of perverse arguments, even if motivated by a genuine concern to improve the article(s) is tendentious. The majority of involved editors have indicated that at present they do not want to see major changes to the article(s), if you are intent upon introducing new text, you should assume that without positive approval for a proposed text, there is no consensus for your proposal. It is not appropriate to require editors to object proposal by proposal, given that editors have already indicated disatisfaction with change and your proposals seem highly POV focussed. If you want change in the article(s), you have to achieve consensus by persuading other editors. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes section subjects morph into one another, without a hard line between them. I agree with Maelefique that this is a pretty good link for the charisma topic, but I am not clear how the sociologsts' definition of charisma differs from the everyday one, and it seems important. What is the difference? Rumiton (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Nik, you say "The majority of involved editors have indicated that at present they do not want to see major changes to the article(s)" but when you recently proposed "a six month editing moritorium of the Rawat articles" not one editor agreed to your proposal? Could you explain to us how you came to your conclusion?Momento (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

While I'm still not sure on the benefit of changing the lead, I am at least willing to entertain the idea that this change could be beneficial, Momento, could you start a new section with the entire paragraph that you're proposing, because at the moment, I feel like I'm not quite seeing the whole picture here. Your latest sentence isn't immediately hugely problematic for me at least. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Created a "Charisma" section below as per Maelefique and NikW.Momento (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Diet

Let it not be said that all ideas were not considered, and that anyone was ignored in these discussions. As per Momento, I'm now starting a discussion on whether or not we should include a section on Diet, personally, I don't think so, but I might be outside of consensus with that opinion. We know we already have lots of references to him eating ice cream, and at least 2 references to him drinking alcohol (I think Collier refers to him "getting sloshed", which doesn't mean I think any more of Collier now than I did last time we had this discussion, nevertheless, if she was an eye witness to it, then maybe). Do we really need a section like this? I hope not, but if Momento thinks so, I suppose we should at least discuss it. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I am going to intervene for the sake of sanity here, a BLP should never repeat never discuss something so irrelevant as a person's drinking or eating habits unless they form a major part of the subjects history, anything else borders on obsession. Ronk01 from an IP (my computer apparently hates me) 98.115.193.141 (talk) 01:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, the voice of sanity, and ironically, it's anonymous :) And even though there are many claims that Rawat preached vegetarianism, and a very spartan diet, along with avoiding alcohol, I still tend to agree with you. We don't need these issues in this article, I hope Momento changes his mind, at least on this point, sooner rather than later. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the anon comment was from me, apparently my computer hates me deeply, and logged me out as I was typing. But this article has gone beyond the world of the sane and rational and into the "Twilightn Zone" of Wikipedia. Things are just a little too weird. Ronk01 (talk) 02:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Maelefique is having a joke. I didn't suggest a section on "Diet".Momento (talk) 06:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

"The core of Rawat's teaching"

Currently the lede has this: "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". The way this is worded implies that the existence of this constant source and its ability to "satisfy the human need for fulfillment" has been factually proven to exist. Has it? Isn't it simply a claim? An assertion, if you prefer. As it stands, the wording gives an undue air of authenticity to what is no more (nor less) than Rawat's belief. Any suggestions? (Mine would be one of these three: "At the core of Rawat's teaching is the claim / idea / notion that the human need ..." Revera (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

How about using the word "concept", it's not judgemental in any way, so you'd end up with "The core of Rawat's teaching is the concept that the human need for fulfillment can be satisfied by turning inward to discover a constant source of joy", however, you still have to take into account whatever the source said that gave us that sentence in the first place. If they presented it as factual, then as long as that sentence remains it should indicate what the source said, as closely as possible. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 22:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"Rawat's teaching" is an accurate, neutral description that covers anything he says about Knowledge without any suggestion that it is true or false. Just like "Rawat's recipe" or "Rawat's instruction". In the same way you can start a paragraph with "Christian teaching" and write about Jesus's mother was a virgin, he rose from the dead, walked on water etc. with no need to say it is a "theory" ,"claim" or "assertion", it is simply a "teaching".Momento (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This was added by Momento in October 2008.[10] Before Momento edited it a second time a month later,[11] the sentence was:

• At the heart of Rawat's teachings lies the message that the human need for fulfillment can be satisfied by turning inward to discover a constant source of joy within.
  • Geaves (2004), pp. 201–202

I suggest we simply go back to that version.   Will Beback  talk  23:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't the sentence altered from Geaves to avoid plagiarism?Momento (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You wrote it and altered it, so that's for you to answer. No one else has made a significant change to it. What is the text in Geaves that we're summarizing?   Will Beback  talk  23:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought you were suggesting changing it? I'm happy with it the way it is.Momento (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Revera is making the suggestion. I'd prefer to not make any changes if we don't need to. If we need to make a change, I'd prefer to make the smallest change possible.   Will Beback  talk  00:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Revera needs a Wiki based reason for the change. "Rawat's teachings" is the correct way to describe anything Rawat says about his teachings. It is not up to us to agree or disagree with him as per any other religion or philosophy.Momento (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of opening another can of worms, I don't see what part of the "Teachings" section this material summarizes. The apparent source for this is Geaves (2004), but we never cite it in that section. Perhaps we should move it down to that section, the same remedy as for the Aldridge material.   Will Beback  talk  04:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the current sentence is a necessary and fair summary of these three sentences from the "Teaching section" - "Prem Rawat says that peace resides in everyone and that the quest for fulfillment can be resolved by turning within to find contentment and joy. Rawat relies on the experience provided by the meditation techniques he calls "Knowledge." Practitioners describe Knowledge as internal and highly individual, with no associated social structure, liturgy, ethical practices or articles of faith". The improvement I think needs to be made is to connect this lead sentence "He emphasizes a direct experience of transcendence, rather than a body of dogma" (Which is a summary of these "Teaching" section sentences "He quotes from Hindu, Muslim and Christian sources, but rather than relying on scriptures for inspiration and guidance, Rawat relies on the experience provided by the meditation techniques he calls "Knowledge".. (with).. no associated social structure, liturgy, ethical practices or articles of faith" from the teachings section) with this lead sentence "Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses" since they are all referring to his talks. And would read, "Rather than relying on scriptures Rawat emphasizes a direct experience of transcendence, rather than a body of dogma and has been has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses". Momento (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't think we need to re-write the Teachings section - it's been the subject of too much wrangling already. I don't see how anything in the sentence in question is a summary of Rawat relies on the experience provided by the meditation techniques he calls "Knowledge." Practitioners describe Knowledge as internal and highly individual, with no associated social structure, liturgy, ethical practices or articles of faith. Those sentences seem to say something else entirely. That leaves only the first sentence: Prem Rawat says that peace resides in everyone and that the quest for fulfillment can be resolved by turning within to find contentment and joy. That sentence is unsourced, but I assume that one of the sources is Geaves.   Will Beback  talk  04:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The Lead says "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". The "Teachings" section says "Prem Rawat says that peace resides in everyone and that the quest for fulfillment can be resolved by turning within to find contentment and joy. He quotes from Hindu, Muslim and Christian sources, but rather than relying on scriptures for inspiration and guidance, Rawat relies on the experience provided by the meditation techniques he calls "Knowledge." The major focus of Maharaji is on stillness, peace, and contentment within the individual, and his 'Knowledge' consists of the techniques to obtain them. Practitioners describe Knowledge as internal and highly individual, with no associated social structure, liturgy, ethical practices or articles of faith. According to sociologist Alan E. Aldridge, Rawat says he offers practical ways to achieve spiritual tranquillity that can be used by anyone". Seems very close to me. The first sentence is very close to Hunt who says "The major focus of Maharaji is on stillness, peace and contentment within the individual, and his Knowledge consists of the techniques to obtain them. Knowledge, roughly translated, means the happiness of the true self-understanding. Each individual should seek to comprehend his or her true self etc.Momento (talk) 05:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

And Barret - "The experience is on individual, subjective experience rather than on a body ofd dogma, and in its Divine Light days the movement was sometime criticized for this stressing of emotional experience over intellect. The teaching could perhaps best described as practical mysticism"Momento (talk) 05:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

And Geaves in Partridge - "However, at the heart of Maharaji's teachings lies the simplest message that the human quest for fulfillment can be resolved by turning inward to discover a constant source of contentment and joy within. This message is supported by four techniques, together known as Knowledge, which provide the practical application that allow the practitioner the possibility of the experience spoken about by Maharaji".Momento (talk) 05:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

A can of worms indeed! Whatever its faults, I suggest we just leave this as it is.   Will Beback  talk  06:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the lead correctly summarises the "Teachings" section but we still have the problem I referred to above. The sentence "Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses,. There are three problems with this sentence. 1) there is no reference to "lack of intellectual content" in the article. 2) The only criticism of his speaking is one source's opinion ( "Sociologist Stephen A. Kent wrote that as a 22-year-old hippie, he found Rawat's message to be banal and poorly delivered, though his companions spoke about it glowingly".) And 3) you can't summarize one half of a sentence of put it prominently in the lead and ignore the other half. I suggest we remove it entirely.Momento (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There is this: Dutch sociologist Paul Schnabel described Rawat as a pure example of a charismatic leader. He characterized Rawat as materialistic, pampered and intellectually unremarkable compared to Osho, but no less charismatic.^[12]

If you recall the previous mediation, we spent weeks discussing how best to represent the charismatic, as opposed to intellectual nature of his work. As you are aware, there is a lot of reference material around this point, so absolutely it belongs in the lead as a summary of the many points in article covering this notable area. Savlonn (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could introduce Rawat's charisma in the lead with - "In the early 1970s the Divine Light Mission under Rawat's charismatic leadership was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West.Momento (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

er.. that would be trying to remove the negative and only present the positive. As it stands the lead politely articulates the he had public appeal through his charisma compensating for his lack of intellectual rigor (to be less formal, a colloquial expression that you would be familar with would be to say that he was a bit of a wanker. This isn't my opinion of course, but a blunt way of making the point that you can't separate out the contrast between the lack of intellectual discourse and the charisma - it is this combination that is articulated.) Savlonn (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Pat, - that isn't helpful. Would you please remove it. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Anything for you Nik :-) But it is in fact true that premies do meditation to escape 'intellectualising' (there are many quotable examples of Rawat warning against the mind - 'Leave no room for doubt in your mind' etc was one of his 'Commandments' - is that in the 'Teachings' section? - if not it should be along with his other 'Commandments' which were well known at the time by ALL involved). Also the practice of meditation does seem to anaesthetise premies to social ethics. In other words they feel justified to 'behave badly' in their service to Prem Rawat. We have seen that said in so many words and I think it is both disgraceful and understandable. The other point is that premies make a virtue of the lack of NEED for intellectual content in 'Satsang' (Rawat and his followers discourses). Rawat himself and his father before him taught that it was 'not the words' but more 'The Company of Truth'. Something in fact which involves purposefully switching off the mind to bask and letting go, in effect, to the 'feeling' of the discourse. You and I know that this covers a multitude of sins but it does explain why people like the 22 year old Kent found Rawat's talk intellectually unremarkable. Maybe his other '22 year old hippy friends' were more impressed because they were not looking for intellectual content. It also explains why premies come here and expect intelligent people to trawl through the pseudo-intellectual tripe they endlessly bring up as a cover for whitewash. Personally I find it really sad to see premie friends paranoid about thinking straight and losing their ethics but there you go.PatW (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Pat. I certainly agree that the Rawat meditation can have major negative impacts on cognitive and emotional function, unfortunately no academic has ever found it worthy of study, so for WP purposes we have to keep what you and I may be sure of, out of the argument. Kent of course provides a balancing assessment on the content of Rawat's orations, but the observation is hardly surprising given that Rawat was never a notable scholar in little school and left education at age 13. Rawat senior at least had admiration for intellectual ability, Prem has never given it value.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what planet you guys are living on. If you are giving us your own experience, let me share mine. I know four practising doctors (MD's), an uncounted number of high school teachers and one guy with a PhD in Sub-Atomic Particle Physics who all practise knowledge. I myself joined Mensa, completed a bachelors degree (hons) in Nautical Science and a Navy Command Certificate, all while practising Prem Rawat's Knowledge and loving it. It just doesn't have anything to do with intellectual ability or effort, peace of mind does not mean impairment of brain function. Regarding your ethical allegations, I think your pathetic and dishonest attempts at characterising premies as intellectual pygmies suggests your own depleted moral state. (I am writing this after advice from Maelefique, who pointed out that editors who repeatedly disrupt the editing process by personal attacks or other misbehaviour forfeit their right to have good faith assumed.) Rumiton (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Uhhh... thanks for the credit? Even if that's not what I said. I made no mention of personal attacks, only disruption of the editing process like Momento had done to get himself banned for a year. Further, I didn't say it was forfeit, I said it would take a while for them to regain my trust in the AGF area. Just for a little clarity here... -- Maelefique ^(talk) 19:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Rumiton, you yourself told me that you hope Wiki can lead people to 'studency with Maharaji' and that the words of 'ex-premies' are like 'snakes' to you and you're trying to defend your experience of Knowledge (which you likened to a baby) against a load of snakes. You yourself admitted that there was no contest (intellectually I suppose). Jossi Fresco admitted that he felt that as 'a player on the Ultimate Team' he was justified to break the rules of the game. That to me strongly suggests that the guy was ethically confused to say the least. Your comments merely suggest that you feel that Rawat's teachings are beyond reasonable discussion. That gives me great confidence that you can tackle issues here sensibly. Momento's consistent bringing up critical stuff about Rawat that he wants to excise or change and total unresponsiveness to the requests of people that he cool it PLUS years of his POV pushing bluster PLUS my experience of living in Rawats ashrams, listening to him for decades since 1974, meeting him, practicing his teachings diligently for years, being accused of being a 'hate group' member here, getting letters of support from a number of people HORRIFIED at the re-writing of their histories by a bunch of lying whitewash merchants...this all makes me feel that there is NOTHING dishonest or PATHETIC or MORALLY DEPLETED about attacking premies' POV pushing ventures here. You might want to note that at least I've had the honesty (as a confessed critic) to restrict myself to activity on this Talk page and not to get involved in edit wars etc.PatW (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I might add that I personally find you and your POV more acceptable than Momento who seems unwilling to discuss his POV honestly. He's hiding his cards just like Jossi did- which caused a lot of bitterness. You sound passionate and obviously very pro-Rawat which at least I respect although I disagree with you about much. About the 'hate group' thing. Yes, there are people who hate the lies of omission that this article tends towards. Hate is a respectable word. I have had supporting letters from people who indeed hate the revisionist tone that has been expressed here and which (they say) is evident in premiedom. These are people who've never visited or heard of ex-premie.org the 'hate group' as you call it. Furthermore they are baffled as to why premies like Momento should feel the need to misrepresent what actually happened. They are mystified! They don't even think it was that bad or that Rawat should be so paranoid about his past as to pretend he didn't portray himself as some kind of "perfect Master' saviour etc. Live with it. Get real. So what? That is actually my position too. I am ready to except that I too am a hater. A hater of lies about my past. That was, and is the only reason I came here. What was yours and Momentos reasons if not what you told me above?PatW (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I cannot speak for Momento, but I have a passionately held belief in Wikipedia, countered by a huge resentment at the way populist journalists have dominated a whole bunch of agendas over many years. I was in the Sydney anti-Vietnam War marches in 1968, when the NSW Police took off their name badges and bashed a whole group of protesters. (Yes, I am aware of the irony in my later joining the Navy, but rightly or wrongly I came to see that as a peace-keeping job.) I saw how the political peace movement was condemned and ridiculed by the Australian press and I recall with love Abbie Hoffman's words, years later: We were young...we were impetuous...we were headstrong ...we were excessive...we were impatient...but GODDAMMIT! WE WERE RIGHT! I saw something similar happen when a 14-year-old Indian boy arrived in Sydney in 1972 talking about masters and devotees and inner peace; the press ridiculed him. "The 14-year-old guru who LIKES ICE CREAM!" one Sydney newspaper trumpeted brilliantly. Millions smirked and turned away, but some of us looked further, and some of us found something that has come to mean a tremendous amount to us. I cannot express what I have experienced; the English language did not evolve to describe these things. But now I see Wikipedia as a place where some of these old and arrogant wrongs can be addressed; where ordinary people can collaborate in choosing the most intelligent sources to say something helpful and meaningful about these finer things that have lasted and proven important. Rumiton (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your honesty about that Rumiton. Your last sentence rather suggests that you have opinions about what constitutes 'old and arrogant wrongs' and what things should be omitted that have not 'lasted and proven important'. I think you're on dangerous ground there since 'intelligent' opinions will differ. I believe that to start with a premise of omitting information is not good. What about starting with a premise of including as much as possible without it getting absurd. Obviously a balance is important. It's also your very personal opinion that the Sydney Press saying "The 14-year-old guru who LIKES ICE CREAM!" is ridiculous. I disagree. This is exactly the sort of thing people are interested in on a mass level. Ok it's nothing to do with the 'deeper' message that he may have had but it was his fondness of ice-cream that got him mentioned in headlines. And who says this article should all be about his message and followers? Why should it not also be about how he is perceived en masse? Many people remember him for the ice-cream thing and other arguably trite observations about him from the press at the time. And what about people who think he's mislead people or who are actually highly critical off him? Don't you think it rather bizarre that the internet is covered with sites and expressions of people who think he has acted irresponsibly and yet that hardly gets a mention? I apologise if it seems rude to call you 'confused' but I am genuinely hard-pressed to understand how someone with your professed intellect can assume that 'intelligent sources' are necessarily ones that see only good in Rawat. That just seems very naive. I'm mindful that quite a number of brilliant scientists etc. bizarrely entertain, in all seriousness, the most fanciful religious beliefs. Might I suggest to you that it really does not matter if the world knows equally about his perceived faults and his message alike. Besides you yourself told me that there is a limit to which Wikipedia (in your opinion) should describe his teachings. You were very uncomfortable about Wiki describing the meditation techniques, which a lot of people would think very precious since they are commonly known Yoga techniques. In short how can you hope to contribute usefully if you are bound up with limitations about what can be said based on your religious beliefs? PatW (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Only just found your reply. I do not have religious beliefs about Prem Rawat or any other subject. I will die, then see what happens, like everyone else. I have no problem with this article saying that the Australian Press concentrated on trivialities, but this article is not about the Australian Press. It was their mistake, their shortsightedness, their 70's enculturalisation. It need not be ours. I disagree entirely that the Internet is covered by anti-Maharaji sites. That is a plank from your own rhetorical platform. I see many hundreds of Youtube and other postings that show great respect to him and a small group of disgruntled folk (I know some of them very well personally, but will not disparage them) trying to appear much bigger than they are. Criticism needs to be intelligently understood and applied, not blindly accepted or rejected. Let's do that. Rumiton (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Charisma2

As per Maelefique's request. The proposal is to add the words in bold to the second paragraph of the lead.

In the early 1970s the Divine Light Mission, under Rawat's charismatic leadership, was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. In 1973, at age sixteen, he was granted emancipated minor status and married a Western woman, which divided his family and the movement. Prem Rawat retained control of the movement outside of India, and took a more active role in its guidance. He became a United States citizen in 1977. He later abandoned the Indian aspects of his teachings to make his message more widely acceptable. 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).

Reason - there is a section in the article called "Charisma and Leadership" that needs to be mentioned in the lead.

Where to place it - 1) Melton, Bromley and Pilarzyk mention Rawat's charisma with its effect on the movement (DLM). 2) There are only four sentences in the chronology of the lead concerned with the 70s. Only one mentions DLM, the others mention emancipation/marriage/split, retaining control outside India; and US citizen. So it seems to me the smoothest way to introduce "charisma" is when discussing the rapid growth of DLM. 3) The insert would links to the "Charismatic authority" article. Momento (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Before we give take Momento's request any further discussion PLEASE can we all see the original context of the use of 'Charisma' here and discuss that first.

I object to Momento's proposal unless he his prepared to produce and discuss the full context of the all sources which describe Rawat as 'charismatic'. Otherwise he could easily be twisting the intended meaning (as he almost always does). By describing Rawat as simply 'charismatic' I suspect Momento hopes to avoid drawing attention to any negative connotations suggested in the original context. I ask everyone to insist he bring that original context to this discussion page for review before discussing this any further. It's not immediately easy to find that context (I tried and failed) so please can this be done by someone who can access the relevant parts? Maelefique, have you read all the original source material which describes him as charismatic? PatW (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Read them yourself PatW. The sources we're summarising are all there in black and white in the "Charisma and Leadership" section of the "Prem Rawat" article.Momento (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to read the original sources not the summaries. I take it you don't possess the original context otherwise you'd obviously be prepared to share it here. That means your proposal is ill-considered and should not be acted upon.PatW (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

PatW, I have read them, but not all of them recently. However, in short, most of the references are from sociologists and scholars who are referring to charismatic in the standard sociological way that Momento has linked above. I don't think that in this instance Momento is trying to "pull a fast one". I have no objection to putting in the text that Momento proposes above, as long as it's exactly as it's listed here. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 22:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I do object. I think I have every right to ask to see the original context since Momento's historic strategy appears to depend on inexorably and imperceptibly separating 'words' from their original context until, over time, he's generated a re-arranged, apparently 'well-sourced' patchwork made up of bits of what people have said, heavily rearranged to paint a sanitised picture of Rawat. Pointing people to already lengthily fought-over paraphrases (possibly even selected and already subject to his vetting) so he can simplistically describe Rawat as 'charismatic' in a totally new positive sentence is unacceptable to me. I won't be convinced until I've read the references and I still think he is trying to assert the positive usual meaning of 'Charismatic' - most people will never investigate the links to learn about 'authoritative charisma' or whatever. This is just the thin end of the wedge and you're giving in.PatW (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Pat, I think your knee is jerking a bit here. Of course you have the right to see the sources, but no one has the obligation to buy them for you. I have several of them and where they use the term charismatic it is in the normal English sense of "capacity to inspire followers with devotion and enthusiasm," which I don't think anyone could deny Prem Rawat had, and arguably still has. From what I have read, the sociologists have never used any other definition. Weber pointed out that charismatic authority often needs replacing by other forms if the group is to survive, and also that charismatic authority is not necessarily a force for good, including Adolph Hitler and Jim Jones among the charismatic leaders, together with Buddha and Jesus. To me, all that constitutes pretty much a truism. Anyway, it's in the link. Rumiton (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Replying to Savlonn; only one source seems to compare charisma with intellect. That was Paul Schnabel, who only found him intellectually unremarkable when comparing him with Osho. As Osho (afaik) was a university professor and Prem Rawat was a grade schooler, this seems a little fatuous. Stephen J. Hunt actually opined that charisma played no role in Prem Rawat's early popularity, attributing it to the quality of his teachings and the value of the experience he showed. That may be a minority view, but perhaps it should be included. Rumiton (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

At the moment all I have to go on is the article section about Charisma. These are the paraphrases that suggest that the adjective 'charismatic' is over-simplistic in the case of Prem Rawat. Pilarzyk seems to suggest that he may not have bee charismatic enough for some followers and that his authority maybe was in question. Hunt actually says his personal charisma was nothing to do with his teachings. I found the DePeryiis paper here :

http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/charisma.htm

• The three aspects of darshan discussed - of Satguru as Absolute, as living master, and within the community of devotees - suggest the imputation of charisma on three interrelated levels. The master in person emerged both theologically and experientially as neither the sole focus nor the unique generator of charisma. Rather he represented a conceptual link which defined and integrated a diffuse set of experiences. Continued adherence to this religion depended on acceptance of this linkage of experiences as well as continued meditational efforts to achieve them.

Then the Schnabel quote: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andries/Prem_Rawat/Non-English)

• The purest examples of charismatic leadership are at this moment, still, Bhagwan and Maharaj Ji. This shows immediately that personal qualities alone are insufficient for the recognition of the charismatic leadership. The intelligent, ever-changing Bhagwan who gives daily performances is not more a charismatic leader than the pampered materialistic and intellectually quite unremarkable Maharaj Ji. As charismatic leaders, they, by the way, both have their own audience and their own function. At the same time, this means however that charismatic leadership, as such, can be staged to a certain degree. Maharaj Ji is an example of this. Certainly, Maharaj Ji's leadership can be seen as routinized charisma (hereditary succession), but for the followers in America and Europe this is hardly significant: they were prepared to have faith specifically in him and Maharaj Ji was embedded in a whole organisation that fed and reinforced that faith.

In previous discussions about this:

• Both quotes, this one and the one above, can maybe be summarized as: "Maharaj Ji's charismatic leadership is very effective, even if comparatively shallow." (according to Schnabel of course, I have no idea, never met the guy...) Anyway, the length of the quoted text can be reduced dramatically, for what is needed effectively. --Francis Schonken 15:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Above Momento says: "I agree. The whole "Charisma" section is absurd. You may as well put in a section "Diet" and put everything you can find about what Rawat eats" My knee is jerking because I see that Momento's actual agenda is to eventually to get rid of the Charisma section from the Rawat article and that this is all building up to that. He also stated that he wants to instead link to the Charismatic Authority article. This is simply a repeat of the insidious cleaning up method employed by Jossi and he, to remove criticism from the Prem Rawat article . Their trick is to first reduce the mentioning of something potentially negative like 'charisma' within the article and simply (reluctantly) put links (which few will follow) to other pages where it is not just about Rawat. Later he will argue that the explanatory and more negative Charisma and Leadership section has become irrelevant. Please wake up everybody! Why should Wikipedia (or we) give an inch to this highly partisan pattern of editing? Especially when this ground has been tramped over many times and he has just returned from having been banned for a year for precicely this kind of behaviour? PatW (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Pat, I think you are off on the wrong track if you believe sociologists consider charisma itself to be "potentially negative." They are just saying it is an attraction between a leader and his following, and that the group that results might end up well or badly. If you shave off the pompous, sociological over-writing, it is a pretty bland idea. As to whether this group (premies) have progressed well or badly, that is what this series of articles is about. Regarding the Charisma and Leadership section, I can't see it as very "explanatory". I don't care much, but I don't see it adding very much to the reader's understanding, self-contradictory as it is. Rumiton (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

We all know the history here Pat, and it's ok if you think I'm being duped, but trust me, I'm not that naive. I'm working on the "base your opinion on the edit, not the editor" idea. I'm fully aware of the history, and have no intention of letting this article revert back to the state it was in when I first found it. He's only adding 4 words, with a link that I'm actually in favour of. So I'm still ok with this, that doesn't make me wedge-fodder. :) -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Maelefique here. "Charismatic authority" is a standard sociological term in relation to NRMs. For more background, see [12]. --JN466 22:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

JN and Maelefique - Since you propose to extend this kind of good faith to someone with proven ambitions to remove information, you might require in reciprocal good faith, an honest statement from Momento about whether this apparently innocent 'addition' is a precursor to him arguing for the removal of any of the more explanatory 'Charisma & Leadership' material below. Why don't you have that discussion with him first? It would at least be politeness to others like myself who have no faith that Momento's proposal isn't part of an aggressive plan to remove criticism. PatW (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Momento’s construction is the most egregious WP:SYNTH – there is no source that correlates Rawat operating a Charismatic authority with DLM growth under Rawat’s leadership. The reference atributed to Melton (here’s more mess) merely observes that there was a judgement about DLM growth, neither Melton nor any other reliable source correlates the growth with either Rawat as a leader or the exercise of Charismatic authority. At present there is no certain source that supports any of Momento’s construction – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/scholars#Melton_-_Encyclopedic_Handbook_of_Cults_in_America – does not include the phrase attributed to Melton at all, it may be possible that 1992 edition of the HoCA did use it but we need to be certain, otherwise that statement about growth needs to be excised. Why we are considering adding this nonsense while leaving the legally impossible comment about Rawat being granted emancipated minor status which is the same paragraph, goes to the heart of what is wrong here. We have no structure for improvement of the article, which leaves POV and fiction writing as the default. This may be an imperfect article but without a determined effort to resolve the sourcing issues throughout, then any unreasearched reworking merely piles error upon error. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to your assertion, the phrase I proposed doesn't make a "correlation" between Rawat's "charismatic leadership" and DLM being "the fastest growing new religious movement in the West". They merely occupy the same sentence. There is no "because of Rawat's charismatic leadership" implying he was responsible but the simply fact he was the "charismatic leader" of the movement that was "judged the fastest growing new religious movement in the West" which is supported by numerous sources. And the material isn't missing from Melton's Encyclopedic_Handbook_of_Cults_in_America, it can be found in New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities [Hardcover] edited by Christopher Partridge (Editor) with a forward by J. Gordon Melton as described in the cite. This process of examining the article and suggesting changes to reduce "POV and fiction writing" is known as collaborative editing and anyone who promotes it should be applauded.Momento (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the connection seems to be implied. Reinhard Hummel talks about the honour in which he was held by the members (he uses the difficult-to-translate word Heilsmittler) and the attractiveness of his request that they serve society for peace, but doesn't use the precise word charisma. If it is true that no source says his charisma led to the membership increase (though it does seem rather obvious to me) then perhaps we should look at a way to separate the two ideas. Rumiton (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It isn't possible to completely separate a "leader" from the "what" he leads, a "leader" has to "lead" something, so putting "the leader' in the same sentence with the movement he "led" is logical. There are only three sentences in the lead concerned with the 70s and "leader" fits better with "DLM" than it does with "marriage" or "retaining control". The quote from Patridge's "New-Religions-Religious-Alternative-Spiritualities" NikW couldn't find is "His message and personal charisma spread rapidly among members of the 1960s counter-culture. In the early 1970s, the Divine Light Mission, the movement made up of Maharaji's followers, was the fastest-growing group in North America and Britain".Momento (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

"as described in the cite". Momento, the cites on this page lead nowhere, if you're intending a different set/order of cites to that in the current article how do you expect anyone to know what your proposal is. And if you are relying on Geaves (the cite would be Geaves in Partridge 2004)for an usupported assertion made by a single author who has a history of involvement in promotional activities of the subject, then WP:RS/AC at a minimum requires "individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources" which is going to be clumsy in the lead. I can see no basis to use Geaves in this highly dubious context where the claim is potentially self serving and promotional. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Melton, Schnabel, Bromley and Pilarzyk all refer to Prem Rawat's charisma, though the inferences they draw from it are individual and difficult to summarize. Rumiton (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

My proposal is very simple, there is a section in the Prem Rawat article called "Charisma and Leadership" that contains seven sources including Geaves who refer to Rawat's "charisma" and "leadership". This should be represented in the lead. The only question is, where to mention it.Momento (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

How about, "Rawat has been described as a charismatic leader. He has been criticized for leading an opulent lifestyle[5] [13] and for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses.[7][12]" Rumiton (talk) 09:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I could live with that. Charismatic should be textlinked, though, I think.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No, no and no. "described as" is a weasel phrase (experts agree "Rawat was a charismatic leader). And if we follow the sources Rawat was "criticised for what appeared to be an opulent lifestyle" and it was the DLM that was criticised for "a lack of intellectual content" not Rawat. As many have suggested let's do one thing at a time. Agree that "charismatic" appears in the lead as simply and economically as possible.Momento (talk) 11:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If we go with "what appeared to be" an opulent lifestyle, then I would expect a photo of his Malibu home to be included to balance the "appeared to be" argument with pragmatic evidence. I recall that the previous image of his home was rejected solely on copyright grounds, being a Google Earth image. If I was to engage a helicopter based photographer to capture images of the residence and then release those images under commons license, there shouldn't be any further problems regarding the use of those images. Savlonn (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I recall there were other objections. My own was that the image included a large block of workplace offices and living apartments for staff, which made the so-called home area look twice as large as it was. There is accommodation for about 12 permanent workers and a number of occasional visitors, plus a sound studio. The actual "house" area is less than a quarter of the total. It was very unNPOV the way it was captioned and referred to. Rumiton (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the main editorial objection to house photos would be that they are primary sources. We would need a good secondary source to tell us what the picture shows. Then, if they had done their homework, they would come up with info like that above. Rumiton (talk) 06:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

My previous reply to this disappeared, but it was along the lines of...(1) "charismatic" is a value judgement, not an absolute. If several sources say he was born in India, or that he got married in 1974, then we can report those things as facts. Words like charismatic can only be descriptions. (2) If the sources say "appeared to be..." then that should certainly be how the article reads. (3) You will have to demonstrate with refs that it was the DLM that was being called lacking in intellect. Rumiton (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

When a panel of experts decide "Rawat was charismatic", it has the same weight as a diagnosis. But I'm happy to go through the article and modify value statements like this "Rawat's affluent lifestyle was a source of controversy in the early 1970" to "Rawat's affluent lifestyle was a source of controversy for some in the early 1970s". Barret says "The experience is an individual, subjective experience rather than a body of dogma, and in its Divine Light days the movement was sometime criticized for this stressing of emotional experience over intellect".Momento (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's deal with "Charisma" first.Momento (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

A "panel" of experts? I missed that bit. If they decided he was handsome, or polite, or a good dancer, would those descriptors become facts? Don't think so. Rumiton (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The whole article is full of descriptions and opinions presented as facts e.g. "He gained further prominence at thirteen when he traveled to the West to spread his message". Not in India."the Divine Light Mission was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West.[4]" by who? "Prem Rawat retained control of the movement outside of India, and took a more active role in its guidance". Really? If the majority of sociologists who have written about Rawat say he was "charismatic" isn't it safe to say he was?Momento (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I used "panel of experts" like "pride of lions". If there are no objections I would like to insert "In the early 1970s the Divine Light Mission, under Rawat's charismatic leadership, was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West". Momento (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't made the case. Your only source for the 'fastest growing' is Geaves and he gives no authority for where he got the data. Geaves is a dubious source given his participation in public promotion of the subject('Passages' etc). The 'fastest growing' element should be removed from the articles as insecurely sourced. You are also continuing to confuse authority with leadership - the two may in some circumstances be the same thing but you have no source that provides that for Rawat. You are flogging a dead horse, and without some additional sources your construction fails on WP:SYN and WP:OR. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. There is a large section in the article called "Charisma and Leadership". I didn't put it there but it is there as large as life and it must be referred to in the lead. If you want to make a proposal to remove "fastest growing" go right ahead but that's a separate issue.Momento (talk) 09:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This is Rumiton on somebody else's computer. This issue does not seem of great importance and is self-evident anyway. I have no objection to your adding the charisma statement to the lead in the form you suggest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.144.174 (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This is Maelefique on my own computer. (Is this a new fad? :) ). I also have no objection to adding that exact phrase to the lead, actually I'm in favour of it because it is much more accurate and removes the ambiguousness, or flat-out incorrect, definition of the word "Charisma" that the lead leaves the reader with now. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This is Momento in the dining room. I have made the edit. Thanks.Momento (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Maelefique again, from same place as last time. Unfortunately Momento, just because I agree with you, and my reasoning seems pretty sound to me, I don't see that we have a consensus to make the change that we would like to see, unless I missed something.

Yes, you did miss something and here it is-

While I won't be for long, I am still mediating this article, and I am going to ask for a vote on Will's proposition, simply vote yes or no. Thank you. Ronk01 (talk) 01:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can live with that. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 06:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, so do I.--Rainer P. (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes.   Will Beback  talk  06:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No. It's an exceptional claim and needs exceptional sources, not just one. It is also UNDUE WEIGHT - the "Teachings" section doesn't state any individual's opinion and Aldridge shouldn't be given an entire sentence (out of 7) for his opinion.Momento (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The main problem I had was the implication that he developed a whole new ball game when World Peace proved harder to get going than he thought. The important thing is the fact that he has taught the inner peace techniques throughout, and I think that is clear now. Rumiton (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, strangely, it looks like we're going to have consensus here! High-fives! -- Maelefique ^(talk) 14:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Momento (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Not Voting> Wikipedia is not a democracy and consensus requires adherence to policies and some acknowledgement of guidelines, these can’t be ignored by vote. Momento has not addressed WP:SYN as I raised in objection nor is he taking any notice of the established position on Geaves that requires sourcing to Geaves to specify that it is sourced to Geaves. It is up to Moment to keep himself apprised of the discussions that have taken place here and at WP:RAWAT during his ban, it’s not down to the rest of us to re-educate him.

On the issue of charisma – I repeat: Charismatic Authority is not equivalent to Charismatic Leadership ! We have no source that says Rawat was a Charismatic leader. It is quite possible for there to be an exercise of charismatic authority without the authority being an identified leader – an example would be Rasputin who certainly did not lead the Russian monarchy but certainly did exercise a strong charismatic authority over it.

On WP:SYN and the ‘fastest growing’ proposition, even if we are to accept the clumsy inclusion in the lede of words that identify this otherwise unsupported claim as coming from Geaves – we have no date with which to fix the exercise of leadership – was Rawat an identified leader of DLM in 1971 or 72 ? arguably not – Pilarzyk (?) describes the early US DLM in terms of being multiple separate cults with a variety of beliefs held by different groupings, the establishment of defined leadership is therefore something that may be quite seprate growth in adherence. I previously described the process here as bordering on fiction writing – I think the border has now been crosssed and editors are entering into the territory of merely making things up by mixing and matching wholly unrelatable sources. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you got your own special version of Wikipedia? Contrary to your claim that "we have no source that says Rawat was a Charismatic leader" the article says "Several scholars refer to Max Weber's classification of authority when describing Rawat as a charismatic leader. And "Dutch sociologist Paul Schnabel described Rawat as a pure example of a charismatic leader". And "David G. Bromley described the difficulty of a charismatic leader in proving to be above normal human failings such as not to suffer ill health or indulge in worldly pursuits. He presents Rawat's marriage as such a situation.". Enough said.Momento (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Quick vote:

Are you ok with the change to the lead that incorporates "In the early 1970s the Divine Light Mission, under Rawat's charismatic leadership, was judged to be the fastest growing new religious movement in the West"?

Yes - Maelefique

Yes - Momento (I'm assuming)

-- Maelefique ^(talk) 03:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes--Rainer P. (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes -- Rumiton (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Please remember Momento, the the sentence regarding Intelectual contant must stay in the lead. Ronk01 (talk) 13:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

And would you please remember that we are not discussing that here and when we do discuss it you will not find a source that mentions both "Rawat" and "intellectual content". "Intellectual content" is coupled with DLM as I have already explained.Momento (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Momento, I'm not sure pasting me a vote that you voted "NO" on was necessarily a convincing point for you to make an edit, but it looks like we do in fact have a majority now, I think we have 2 dissenting votes that haven't been registered yet, (Pat and Nik, and I'm just assuming this, I don't *know*) Savlonn and Will (Who I think is on a Wikibreak) haven't chimed in, so that looks to me like a 4:2 in favour of making the change, so now that I'm happy we've followed all the rules, if you want to make that change again, go right ahead! If you haven't made the change by the time I check in later today, I will re-add it for you. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 18:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Having a majority isn't a good guide. The guide is "What do Wiki policies, guidelines and practices" indicate. In this case, it's a no brainer. Wiki lead says - "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". Anyone that has argued against mentioning the large section "Charisma and Leadership" in the lead either doesn't understand how Wiki editing works or simply doesn't like what following Wiki editing practices creates. We should be insisting that all editors support "Wiki policies, guidelines and practices" and not be bullied and side tracked by people who consider their opinion more important.Momento (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Momento, I made the above statement because you have a history of attempting to act without consensus, and I could see this proposed change being used as a springboard for you to change several aspects of the lead under the guise of modifying for this proposal. Furthermore, the DLM is inextricably intertwined with Rawat to a point where a source relevant to the DLM is relevant to Rawat. Ronk01 (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

AGF Ronk01, what I wrote above applies to you. If you don't want to follow "Wiki policies, guidelines and practices", don't edit here. Your opinion that what applies to DLM applies to Rawat is risible. So everything don't by an American is done by Obama? If you want to help I suggest you find a source that says "Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses" to back up your opinion that it should remain in the lead because I can't find one and currently the sentence is WP:SYN.Momento (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Directly from WP:AGF, "Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. Just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed, and exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others if a perceived assumption of bad faith was not clear-cut.". Enough with the AGF, AGF! everytime someone points out that you have long and clear history of being disruptive. Why not instead focus on being helpful, and the problem will take care of itself eventually. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 00:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Maelefique. I'l try to be better in future. Now perhaps we can put the past behind us and put "Charisma" in the lead.Momento (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Momento, Mr. Obama did not found the United States of America, he does not preach the "message" of the United States of America, he did not develop the theology of the United States of America, and he has never declared himself or his wife to be an incarnation of a god. Prem Rawat is all of these things, so you see, Prem Rawat is the DLM. Ronk01 talk, 18:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)