User talk:Steven Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal1

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Proposal #2 I've posted revised text at User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal1#Proposal 2. It includes additional information and tightens up the writing. We can discuss it here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Not bad, but Where is the source for this: was discussed in Parliament? Also, why have you removed the other material that is as well sourced as other material you added? Any specific reason, or just a personal preference? I am referring to your replacing this material: The director of the movement's public relations division said that the money was to be used to support the local travel and food expenses of the visitors,[1], and lawyers representing the Divine Light Mission reported that one of the travelers, forgot to declare the currency and valuables, and that the goods seized did not belong to Rawat for this material: A DLM spokesman said that the money did not belong to Rawat, but had been deposited in the "Divine Bank" by followers in order to pay for local travel and food. Care to explain? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Glad you approve. I'll get the parliament source. the other stuff mostly copy editing. The only substantial part omitted is blaming one of the travellers. The relevance to Rawat was that he was the center of the allegation. Neither he nor the person who took the fall in rone report were prosecuted, so it doesn't seem to have made any difference to the case. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC) I have not approved it, Will. Just commenting that it is not bad. I am not sure why are you brining up an issue of "blame" as the sources do not ascribe "blame" to anyone. FYI, there were two other people that were investigated, these two that carries that suitcase through customs. You have still not answered my question about the reason for choosing one source over the other, and I am awaiting for a straight answer. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC) The parliament source is already there, at the end of the sentence. I'm not sure what you mean by "one source over another" - which source over which? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC) I cannot find that specific clipping in my collection. Care to make the text available to me? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC) I've sent it by email. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Thank you. Much appreciated. I cannot find a mention of prime minister Gandhi in that clipping, maybe that was in another source? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC) I sent you the clipping that mentioned the parliament. I'll send you the Gandhi clipping too. (I thought the same article had mentioned both, but apparently not). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Yes, I have seen the mention of Gandhi somewhere, but it will be good to add the source for that fact/. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Proposal #3 Merged Proposal 2, with one portion of Proposal 1 as per comments above Removed the "cursed" tidbit that seems to me to be redundant and unrelated to the customs incident being described Added source for last statement Removed material about Gandhi until we find the source ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC) The tensions between the subject and his mother are an important aspect of the subject's life, and we mention other conflicts. Why delete it from here? You also delete the name of the "Divine Bank" which is mentioned in many accounts. Is it really necessary to say " the director of the movement's public relations division" instead of "a spokesman"? It's very wordy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC) You may have a point or two here, Will. The term "divine bank" does not seem to appear in most of the sources we have. Not sure what value that adds. I will make some corrections to proposal 3. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Also, the source used (INDEPENDENT, PRESS-TELEGRAM), seems at a cursory glance to be quite tabloidesque in its reporting. What is that source, a local newspaper, a magazine? Do you have it accessible? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC) The Long Beach Press-Telegram is not a tabloid. As for the "divine bank", it's covered in many sources, far more than those that specify "a necklace" or "the director of the movement's public relations division". I can provde you with some citations: All of (he followers have regular duties in the camp, such as cooking, laundering, folding leaflets or working in such establishments as the 'Divine Bank." where devotees change dollars to rupees at the legal rate of exchange. THE Premies said he was being falsely persecuted, just as Jesus Christ had been. They said the alleged countraband was part of the assets of the mission's divine bank and was being held in safekeeping for the owners, all devotees. According to the guru's disciples, the stash was a Divine Bank that had been put together to support the pilgrims during their month-long sojourn in India. Refusing to buy that story, the Indian government ordered an investigation into the movement's finances and seized the passport of the "prince of peace." A spokesman for the mission said the goods seized belonged to the Divine Light Bank," where all the guru's followeres had deposited their currency and valuables. According to the mission, the goods seized did not belong to the guru but had been deposited with the "Divine Bank" by followers who flew to New Delhi in a fleet of chartered jumbo jets for a religious festival. I can find more if that's not enough. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC) I've just noticed another source about Ghandi, which expands significant;y on the nature of her interest. I'll prepare a "proposal #4" to incorporate a sentence about it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC) (amended) Sure. As for the "divine light bank", that could be added. I do not think that they referred to the bank as being "divine", rather, a divine light mission "bank". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC) I never heard of a "divine bank" but it is entirely possible it was used to describe somebody with some rupes in a bag to swap for dollars. The word divine was tossed around a lot, in a playful way mostly. The humor of the times does not come across very well today. Rumiton (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Prop. 4 I've added more detail about the investigation and the jewelry. I've sent you the news source. I left it "divine bank" since that seems to be the more commonly-used name ("Divine Health Care Center", "Divine Employment Agency", etc.). Apparently many enterprises were called "divine". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC) I also trimmed and added material: Lawyers representing the DLM reported that one of the travelers forgot to declare the goods, and that the goods seized did not belong to Rawat. to Secretaries took responsibility for the valuables and for failing to declare them. . That incorporates two aspects, Apter's and the Indian secretary, and trims a redundant declaration that the material didn't belong to Rawat. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Can you send the source that you have summarized as the government asked diplomats to investigate DLM finances in the U.S., U.K. and other countries looking for violations of laws governing foreign assets held by Indian nationals? The material I have relates to communist members of their parliament making such comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC) ALso, the sources provided do not mention Gandhi at all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC) I sent you the artilce yesterday - "Gifts for a guru". Do you need me to send it again? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Found it, thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Prop. 5 Small tweaks to stay closer to the sources. Are we there now, Will? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC) This is awfully wordy: "A senior member of the government reported that diplomatic missions in several countries, including the U.S., U.K, were asked to investigate ..." Why can't we just say that "Diplomatic missions in several countries, including the U.S., U.K, were asked to investigate ..." The phrase ""A senior member of the government reported that..." doesn't add much, unless we're trying to say that we find the claim to be dubious. Otherwise it looks fine to me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Saying "the government" is inaccurate, as we do not know exctly what was asked and who did ask. I will try a shorter version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC) I'm suggesting dropping "the government" and to use instead, "Diplomatic missions in several countries, including the U.S., U.K, were asked to investigate ..." Since the preceding sentence refers to the government I think it's clear that the request was official. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC) That looks fine to me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Shall we ask Steve to request an editprotected? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) If so, my talk page is → that way. :D. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 17:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC) A) Maybe I should have specified with which exact version I agreed. The date of the passport revocation was just removed without comment.[1] It's reasonably clear as edited, but I'd appreciate it if new changes are discussed or a fresh proposal is made. B) Do two editors constitute consensus? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Consensus is based on these editors that chose to participate. As we are in mediation, and proposals are being made and worked on, anypne can comment on the proposals and/or provide their own. Consensus is assessed by lack of strong objections, no? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Regarding the date for the passport thing, either we say the exact date (which is superfluous, IMO) or simply we state "at the time" which makes it clear that it was at the time of the incident. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC) None of the other active editors have been involved in this discussion. Would any editors who changes this text without fresh discussion and consensus be regarded as disruptive, even if they haven't participated here? Consensus usually isn't binding on other editors, but between the probation and mediation perhaps that's changed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC) While not binding, all the parties have agreed to the idea I presented. Also, silence, generallu = consensus, if enough time and exposure is given. True, it's an issue (the idea that one would not partake in the discussion, yet raise objections after), but its a possibility. We will come down that road when we get to it. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 04:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Then let's make sure that each of these proposal gets enough time and exposure so that there won't be any question. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC) I'm not consensing, I'm not consensing! :) I am away right now, and do not have time to devote to the project until I return on Monday (already wikibreaking, wikibroken?)but will stick my head in as I can. One quick comment for readability, how important is the Hans Jayanti festival? Is not enough to just say Rawat returned to India for a festival to celebrate his father's birthday? Seems like extraneous material to include a name most people will not know, and I don't see how it would detract from the focus of the proposal by removing it. Having said that, it could just be me that doesn't know about Hans Jayanti, is that the case? Also somewhere, we should explain what a "Divine Bank" is, that reference I do understand, but I think it may be construed in many different ways without some additional context, somewhere. Ohh, time's up, glub glub glub... -- Maelefique (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Thanks for commenting. Events surrounding two Hans Jayanti festivals ('72 and '73) are mentioned in the article. While the DLM conducted many festivals, some annually and some ad hoc, the "HJ" appears to have been the most important so it seemed worth mentioning. If there's a strong objection I don't mind dropping it. As for the "Divine Bank", while it's mentioned in several accounts none go into much detail. Can you suggest a different construction? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Re: Rawat, who had surrendered his passport at the time, posted a $13,300 bond in order to leave the country for a planned English-American tour in June 1973. Charges were eventually dropped with apologies from the government.[40] [41] This is another examle of the problem of presenting a minor (Rawat still only 15) as the agent of activities requiring the status of legal majority. A 15 year old could neither surrender a passport, nor post a bond. A construction along the lines of "A $13,300 bond was posted in order for Rawat to be able to leave the country for a planned English-American tour in June 1973. Charges were eventually dropped with apologies from the government.[40] [41]" would avoid the problem of defining agency.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Good point. Shrunk and White tell us to avoid passive sentences but the reality of encyclopedia writing is that vague statements are the most accurate. Rather than attributing actions or causes to people without proof it's easier to say that "things happened". Who knows who did what, exactly? The more we're precise the less we're accurate, as with all measurements. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC) If it is assumed 'silence=consensus' please count me out of this from now on. As it happens I am unable to contribute at this time and possibly for quite a while.PatW (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC) DLM article The DLM article has similar content at Divine_Light_Mission#Festivals. Once we have agreement on a version for the main article, we could do a short summary of it and replace the current content at the DLM article, for consistency. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC) That content is a summary of what we've got here. The DLM version barely mentions the customs incident. As for arrangements in general- I tried that with the Millennium '73 festival and then an editor came through and inserted a bunch of unnecessary material. If we can get an agreeement from all parties then I'd be interested. But agreements that don't include loose cannons are worthless. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC) User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal3 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Ready? It's been several days since the last comment. If there are no objections I'll suggest that this material be added to the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC) It was my understanding that the DLM chartered those jumbo jets, as it reads now, it looks as if the followers chartered their own jumbo jets, is that right? Unrelated note: I couldn't come up with a better construction for the "Divine Bank" problem without using up far more words than it's importance would indicate as appropriate. -- Maelefique (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC) That's a small change. It had said, "...including 2,500 members from the U.S. who chartered seven jumbo jets for the trip and stayed a month at the DLM's Indian ashrams" which I just changed to "...including 2,500 members from the U.S. who traveled on seven chartered jumbo jets and stayed a month at the DLM's Indian ashrams." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Works for me. -- Maelefique (talk) 05:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Anything else? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Only the smallest of items, the proposal says "traveller checks", which are normally referred to as " traveler's checks". Other than that, I'd say I'm happy with proposal 5. -- Maelefique (talk) 07:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC) I strongly disagree with this proposal. This is excessive undue weight for an incident that Rawat was not party to and for which the government apologized. The existing material is sufficient.Momento (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Could you point out where there is undue weight? Additionally, plenty of time was given for an alternate proposal to be added, or discussion, but the edit has been made, as I saw no objection, until after the edit was made. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 09:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Undue weight is giving undue prominence. As I said above Rawat didn't own the material, Rawat wasn't charged and the government apologized to him. This is a minor incident that was blown out of proportion by the media and is now being blown out of proportion by Wikipedia. It is "guilt by association.", five lines about suspected smuggling has become 13 lines. It is now the largest paragraph in the article. That is undue weight. And yes some time may have been given for alternatives but the choice made by WillBeBack was announced at 9:04, 4 June, relayed to the Prem Rawat talk page 24 hours later and acted on by you in less than 30 minutes. Who had time to object before?Momento (talk) 10:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Actually, Proposal 5 was first started on May 29, 2008, by Jossi. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 11:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC) We should all recall the history here. I edited-in a short version of the event, "Prop.0". Jossi wanted more context and so we made a succession of edits resulting in an agreed-upon result. Momento appears to be arguing for using my original text. However since writing that I've learned more about the interest of Ghandi and the international investigation which leads me to believe it is worth the weight we give it in this proposal. This was discussed in Parliament which means it's worth including either here or at DLM. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC) The history doesn't matter. I can live with Prop 0. The extraneous stuff in the other versions adds nothing that I can see of interest or value. The most important statement for this BLP is "charges were never laid and the government later apologised," and that is getting masked by all the careful listing of jewelry and wristwatches, questions raised in the house, etc. I particularly object to the line in versions 4 and 5 that says two secretaries "took responsibility." This is an insinuaton that there was wrongdoing and that somone took the rap for it. Totally unacceptable. Rumiton (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Can someone please point out to me which of the five proposals (drafts!) you're discussing here? Thanks... Sylviecyn (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Proposal 5 Sylvie, unless you'd like to discuss one of the others as an alternate, or create #6. Momento's argument against the material makes a lot of noise, but has no factual basis presented. He says it was a "minor incident blown out of proportion by the media", well if there's a source for that claim, let's have it. If not, this event seems to come up in most books on Rawat, even Downton, who really had nothing to do with that part of his life, mentions it. One pro-Rawat editor wants it fleshed out, one doesn't (but provides nothing concrete to his argument), seems like a bit of a stalling tactic to me. I think any time a government apologizes to someone, that's important enough to mention in a biography (obvious? not obvious?). Regarding the claim that it's the largest paragraph in the article, the article isn't finished, this is where we were starting, so that's a bit of a specious argument. -- Maelefique (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC) The current proposal #5 is the result of discussions related to providing context for the incident, and could certainly be tightened as per the concerns raised by Momento and Rumiton. I would appreciate if Momento and or Rumiton present an alternative proposal based on the work available in proposal #5 that could be discussed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Thanks, it's late here, I will try tomorrow. The problem I keep coming up against is, How long should this article be? When I first got involved the article had just failed a Good Article review, largely on the basis of its being "bloated." Since then it has grown out of all proportion, and there are editors who seem to want it to get even huger. Every claim needs a counter-claim, then a counter-counter-claim for "balance". It is a kind of madness. Can we get some ruling from the GA people on how big an article is justified here? Then we can work back towards something we might even one day be proud of. Rumiton (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Actually, I think that's an example of what not to do. I don't think every claim needs a counter-claim, and those don't need counter-counter-claims. Most articles seem to go as far as "this is what this subject is about" and then a bit about "this is why all that is bullshit", and then it's over. At some point you have to trust in the reader's ability to sort out the data on their own; that they have the ability to comprehend. You don't have to cover everything, or as you say, you'll go crazy trying to cover all the angles and qualify every opinion. Mael-Num (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC) None of the assertions in this proposal are "claims". The intent of this material is to plainly summarize the reporting of reliable sources on this matter, using the neutral point of view. If there are counter-assertions, to the effect that these events didn't happen as described, then we can include those too. We already include the denial by the DLM spokesman. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Straw poll Prop 5 Shall we add proposal #5 to the article? Please sign your name under the position you support, and please add a (hopefully brief and well thought out) comment. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed. Support Prop 5 ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC) The material is important (resulting in high-level interest, extensive press coverage, a prohibition on travelling for six months, and conflict between mother and son), well-researched, and neutrally-presented. Support. -- Maelefique (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Support. --John Brauns (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Support. 82.44.221.140 (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Support. Well-researched and well-written. Sylviecyn (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Seems OK. An improvement. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC) - Update: see below #Progress --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Oppose Prop 5 Oppose. Undue weight that consists largely of tabloid beat up sourced from the US Army newspaper! Example, Rawat called Hans Jayanti ""the most significant event in human history", it's absurd to claim he would miss it and "curse" his mother. Secondly, where does "charges were eventually dropped with apologies from the government" come from? Most sources say charges were never laid. Thirdly, the government apologized, so thirteen lines to describe a mistake made by Indian customs against an innocent Rawat is undue weight, poisoning the well, guilt by association etc. Fourthly and no surprise, any vote will be a simple numbers game along party lines of which the "pro" editors are a small minority.Momento (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Oppose. Undue weight, Momento said it well. Jayen466 00:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Counter propose Proposal #6, which keeps the essence of the incident, without WP:UNDUE concerns. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC) So you are opposed to adding the text that you drafted? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Strongly oppose. As above, we need to be extremely careful of translated material. "Cursing" leaps off the page and is very suspect. If the original Hindi word or phrase she used is available we can look at it, if it seems relevant. I doubt if it is. As Momento said, going into lingering detail of what appears to be a crime is not neutral, even if you eventually say no charges were laid. The "questions raised in the house" and the Prime Minister's "interest" sound like a suggestion of scandal. None of this is NPOV. The whole section needs to be rephrased. I will start now. Rumiton (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Discussion I'm leaning towards support, but before I throw my straw in, a comment an a question. The final line reads:"eventually dropped with apologies". Can we change it to "eventually dropped, with apologies"? Relatively minor, but otherwise it sounds like a proper thing, like "graduated with honors" or "terminate with prejudice". With all the talk of what the wording should be, has anyone double-checked the numbers? I don't have access to all the articles and all the reported facts. Can one (or better, two) people vouch for the numerical facts? Also, glad to see the reported value in pounds sterling removed in favor of the estimated USD value. Looks more consistent that way. Mael-Num (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC) I don't think anyone would object to adding the comma you mention. As for the numbers, different sources give different numbers. In one case, the value of the suitcase, we give the range or reported values (excluding one that appears to be off by an order of magnitude). In other cases we just pick a number. For example, some sources report five charted jumbo jets, some report six, and at least one reports seven. The number of followers from the U.S. is sometimes reported as 2500 and sometimes as 3000. There are obviously round numbers and neither appears to be definitive. Since those differences don't materially change the story in any way, it seems safe to take one from a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC) You know it's a touchy subject when punctuation can spark a tenacious debate! I don't see any debate, tenacious or otherwise, over the comma. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC) I'm comfortable with the numbers if you guys are. One other question I had: I believe Momento had asked that the bit where we describe Rawat's "cursing" his mom be removed. I don't remember the exact argument, but I remember it was a pretty convincing one. It does sound a little negative, or at least a little overly dramatic. I think this piece would be just as strong without it. Mael-Num (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Hey lookie, he's saying some of the same thing above. (Trust me, it sounded way more convincing the first time.) Mael-Num (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC) !Voting is evil - I have made a request to these editors that think this is too much material for a bio article to make a proposal in which the material is shortened. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Voting isn't evil, Voting is a tool - counterpoint. (at least I have a fast learning curve and note that these are both essays and not policy).82.44.221.140 (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Jossi, this isn't a vote. And also, as I know you have been an administrator for many years on Wikipedia, straw polls can be used on occasion when necessary. This is one of those instances. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 22:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Can we assume that since Jossi didn't oppose the vote while he stopped to throw out his 1.5 cents worth, that he's not opposed? Or is he just keeping us in suspense? Is this a cliffhanger? (ooh, just like a TV show ending...) -- Maelefique (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Folks can participate (or not) in any way that isn't disruptive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Regarding Momento's opposition comment above, none of the sources are tabloids. The Stars and Stripes was just carrying an AP story, we can use another newspaper as the source of record if it makes a difference. I don't see what difference it makes. Note that we use the U.S. Army Handbook for Chaplains as a source and no one has complained about it. The source for "charges dropped with apology" is Downton (see the citation). While the charges were dropped (or never filed) the dispute still happened, it still prevented Rawat from travelling, it was still discussed in Parliament, and was still widely reported. Note that my own original draft is at "Proposal 0" - most of the additional text was added at Jossi's behest. I'd originally been concerned that it was getting too long, but then I found out about the parliamentary debate, Ghandi's interest, and the international investigation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Further regarding Momento's comments, line by line: "largely consists of tabloid beat up sourced from the US Army newspaper" - False, there are 7 different citations, 3 are from Stars And Stripes "it's absurd to claim he would miss it and "curse" his mother" - False, it was Mata Ji that said he was cursing, as per source. "where does 'charges were eventually dropped with apologies from the government' come from?" - Downton for one. " thirteen lines to describe a mistake made by Indian customs against an innocent Rawat is undue weight" etc etc - If any government ever apologizes to me for anything ever, I want it on my Wikipedia page, definitely! And finally, "any vote will be a simple numbers game", We aren't using the vote to decide anything, it's just one more tool, and maybe, just maybe, a minority view is a minority view because most people don't agree with it. That's consensus. -- Maelefique (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC) (ec) Why don't people here give a chance for further proposals? Why the sudden rush? I believe that it is possible to keep the substance of this material without it being the longest paragraph in a biographical article. Note that Proposal 5 was developed by Will and myself, without much input from others until yesterday. As I can see that there are concerns about this proposal's length, why not to continue the good work and shorten it? If no one wants to attempt that, I will, although I would prefer that others take stab at it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC) What rush? The proposal has been there since at least the 28th of last month, it's one paragraph. It was only when we actually went to update the article that certain editors bothered to pay attention to it. On the other hand, I don't think we need to agonize over a few sentences for months either, especially when the information contained within seems fairly straight-forward and well-sourced. -- Maelefique (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC) This proposal dates back to May 23.[2] A few hours later the editor who wrote it said, "I am still awaiting to close this discussion and this edit to be made."[3] Barely over a day later he asks again, "In any case, I would argue that the proposed edit can be made straight away, and we can then discuss if to add or not to add these sums."[4] This draft has been discussed, mostly by Jossi and myself, openly and amicably. It appeared that there was a consensus for the stable version we drafted together, but at the last moment a couple of editors objected for the first time, out of the blue. So this poll is a way of testing the opinions of editors. Let's see if there's a consensus to add the version that Jossi and I wrote, and have discussed for weeks. If others want to make further changes then this isn't written in stone. We can easily change it again later. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC) I see two editors above opposing the work we have done, Will. As I said, if no one wants to attempt a proposal #6 that addresses their concerns, I will. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC) If you want to keep working on this that's fine. I think that what we did is good enough to add and better than what's there now. Those are sufficient reasons to add it. Discussions on further changes can continue ad infinitum. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Not really... It should be esay. I will give it a shot and hope that it addresses Jaen and Momento's concerns. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC) What about the concerns of the six editors who endorse adding the proposal we wrote now? You've been asking over and over again for this to be added "straight away". You now have a consensus to do so. Consensus doesn't mean unanimity. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Consensus doesn't mean unanimity. Agree. But there is no harm in addressing the concerns expressed. As I said, I am now working on a proposal #6. Patience, please? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC) This poll is on Prop. 5. If you want to create Prop. 6, 7, 8, 9... and then start strawpolls on them then that's for the future. Let's just see if this version, written over weeks and stable for days, has a consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC) I disagree. There is no consensus and this is not a !vote. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC) We have three editors expressing concerns, and I have taken their concerns into account on the new proposal #6, that may put us through and get the edit done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC) So 2/3 of those who've commented approve of adding Prop. 5. Go ahead and start a strawpoll for Prop. 6 and see how much support it gets. I won't support it because it deletes material we've previously discussed belongs in the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Prop.5 is fine except for the final sentence where the issue of agency of minor is a problem - I've created Prop.9 which is Pro.5 with the final sentence amended to address the agency issue.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC) 'Consensus' is a version that all parties can live with. Compromise is necessary, and as one of the two editors that working on proposal 5 alongside you, Will, I am more than willing to work toward a consensus version that all editors could live with ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC) "Tabloid" I find myself confused by the use of the word "tabloid" by some editors. Above, an editor argues in favor of having less material, writing: Undue weight that consists largely of tabloid beat up...[5] He seems to be saying that giving the incident this much space or detail we are being like a tabloid (presumably he means "Junk food news" rather than "compact newspaper format"). However another editor on a different talk page, while aguing for adding more material to this topic, writes: Shortening only if the context is left there intact. This is not a tabloid.[6] That seems to mean that we are being like a tabloid if we don't give the incident sufficient detail. Perhaps "tabloid" isn't a helpful term to use in discussing this issue. It has no real meaning, and is apparently used to argue both sides of a dispute. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Basically, what I understand from the concerns expressed, is that given the outcome of that incident (i.e charges not filed and an apology), the text is way too detailed and unnecessary. Clearly an tabloidesque press (of that time) was making a big deal of something that came to nothing. I can understand that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC) What is the tabloidesque press? Does it include the Stars and Stripes and the New York Times? Is it tabloidesque to add material or to delete it? What, exactly, does "tabloid" mean in these two quotations? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC) I have not argued for deletion of material. I am arguing that the comments made have some merit and need to be taken into account. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC) What is the "tabloidesque press" and how is it relevant to this materil? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Read the sources, and you will know what I mean. The tone and content are nothing but sensationalist. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Never read Stars and Stripes, but the Times is definitely a broadsheet. (I've also heard they're pretty thorough in their research) All jokes aside, Jossi might have a point there, as gurus and their movements were "hot topics" at that point in the 70's. Jossi, maybe you could pull a couple of quotes so we can see what you mean more clearly? Mael-Num (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Jossi, I don't see what you mean, please explain. The Times is not a tabloid. None of the quoted sources are tabloids, so far as I'm aware. I don't even know what "tabloidesque" means. It should be defined if editors are going to use it as an argument. It don't see how it can be used as both a justification for adding material and for deleting it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Just because we are talking about the press, I am reminded that press reporting has historically been a problem in this field in all but the very best publications; hence my general reluctance to rely too much on newspaper reports. Here is a quote from a United Nations report on the quality of newspaper reporting on "cults", mentioning in particular the reporting in the United States: 106. As explained by the Special Rapporteur, in several mission reports (Germany E/CN.4/1998/6/Add.2; United States of America E/CN.4/1999/58/Add.1), the media, and in particular the popular press, all too often portrays matters relating to religion and belief in particular religious minorities, in a grotesque, not to say totally distorted and harmful light. The Special Rapporteur has recommended starting a campaign to develop awareness among the media on the need to publish information that respects the principles of tolerance and non-discrimination. These measures would also make it possible to educate and shape public opinion in accordance with these principles. The study would therefore identify the role of the media in hatred and religious intolerance vis-à-vis religious minorities, their responsibilities and would recommend preventive measures, including action to be taken under the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights advisory services programme. This discussion may not be the ideal place to bring this up, but I was reminded of it by the above and mention it just as something to be borne in mind in general as we're editing these articles. Jayen466 00:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC) No sources are perfect. We use the best we can find. What gets confusing is when the finest newspapers in the world are called "tabloidesque", and when the claim of being "tabloid"-like is used as an argument for both removing and adding the same material. Unless folks can say exactly what they mean by "tabloid" and "tabloidesque" those shouldn't be paraded around as legitimate arguments. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Proposal #6 This version is shorter, keeping the essence of the incident without unnecessary detail. Submitted as an attempt to reach consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Previously, you made a big deal about replacing the vague "jewels" with the more specific "a necklace".[7] Now you replace the details with the even more vague term "valuables". WIf you no longer want the details why not go back to "jewels"? That's more precise than "valuables". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Other important details that have been omitted are the international investigation and the comment by Mata Ji that her son was mad at her for bringing him there. Also, I disagree with the premise of this edit, that the material has undue weight. We are expanding this part of the article and this is the first part of that expansion. Other parts will grow too. This isn't a paper book. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC) No Will. This approach will not work. We are adding and improving this article, and additions need to be commesurate with the size of the article. The "long" version, can be kept for a later stage. As for no, this long version is way, way too long and unacceptable in the context of the current article's size. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Prop 7 While I appreciate what Jossi's trying to do, I think he might have taken too many valuable details out. I did a bit of copy-editing, changed the seven jumbo jets to several (as was mentioned above, reports vary and the key thing [to me] is the 2500 people...that's a lot of people no matter how many jets they filled and that message carries), and other things that slip my mind at the moment. Mael-Num (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC) I don't see how this proposal addresses the concerns expressed by several editors, as it is very much Proposal #5 with minimal tweaks ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Could you be more specific? I'm not trying to be difficult...you know me, it's just natural ;) Seriously, though, I saw that Momento posted his concerns, and one was the "Rawat vs Mom" part, and I think that was handled fine. You can see above (or maybe haven't yet seen) that I share his concerns on this. The rest of it looked like a bunch of objections over what is considered "undue weight", which I really don't understand. The gist I got was that Momento and others feel it shouldn't be discussed at all, and honestly, I don't think that's up for discussion. I want to help, though, and I want to be fair, so help me understand what the matter is. Mael-Num (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC) What is your concern about "Rawat vs Mom"? Momento, for one, has made a point of including "Mom" material before,[8][9] so I odn't understand his objection to it here. The tension between Rawat and his mother is one of the important themes in his early life. Here we have her speaking in her own words about her son's communication with her. I think it's a relevant detail that gives context to the eventual rift. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC) If I heard that someone "cursed their mother", I would likely not think very highly of them. Maybe it's a case of personal or cultural bias on my part, but I think it might add a little too much negative color. Seriously, if you heard this about someone you knew personally, wouldn't you think badly of them? As you say, there is an "eventual rift" in this story...can't we get to that part of the story and let it serve to show the conflict between mother and son? Mael-Num (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC) These are not his mother's words, Mataji never learned to speak English. This is someone's translation of something she said in Hindi. When translated words jump off the page like that you need to question the quality of the translation. Rumiton (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Actually, I've heard the word "curse" used by native hindi/urdu speakers when they speak in English, and in similar context to this use, i.e. "expressing strong negative feelings". Why do you think the translation is inaccurate? Mael-Num (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Perhaps you have, but have you heard an American mum use this word to describe her son's response to her authority? This is my point, the word is clearly much stronger for native English speakers than it is in Hindi. Good translation requires that a word of similar weight be chosen in the target language, not just a "correct" dictionary equivalent. Anyway, we seem to have moved on satisfactorily. Rumiton (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC) I'd be surprised if any teenaged boy didn't curse about or become angry with his mother in any culture or society, and for more minor reasons. I really don't see the controversy about that statement at all. But, if it's too much for some, then just change it to "was angry with his Mata Ji..." or "Mata Ji said he was angry with her" and please let's move on. Sheesh already! The word "curse" doesn't have to be in the article. Also, I do hope that this is the one and only time that any editors decide to throw a monkey wrench into the works here, by suddenly objecting to a proposal that had already reached consensus. I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to delay any of these proceedings if I chose to remain silent, and then I suddenly started paying attention and demanded a delay. It's simply not fair to the editors who have been contributing in good faith to these proposals. There have been multiple notices on the Prem Rawat talk page about these proposals, so there's really no excuse for not contributing sooner, imo. And it would be most appreciated if editors discontinue the practice of referring to realiable sources as "tabloid" or "tabloidesque," when discussing established, reputable sources. The NYTimes isn't a tabloid, nor is the Stars and Stripes," which is a daily newspaper that's been in existence for the U.S. military since the 1940s, and is far from being a tabloid. Sylviecyn (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Prop 10 I supported Proposal 5, even though I initially felt it was too long, because it covered more than just the customs incident. Proposal 10 covers the same ground. 1972 Hans Jayanti: approx 40 words. If this stands on it own as a notable event, and not just context for a description of the customs incident, then fine, otherwise I suggest shortening it. If it stays, how about placing a minor section break after the information about the festival, so that the remainder of this section is short and tightly focused on the customs incident? Rawat’s Mother: I felt that the conflict between between Rawat and his Mother in version 5 justified this inclusion, but not in version 10 without the ‘cursing’ reference. There should be either a full reference to his mother’s comments or none at all. If we want to cut this down, then I suggest removing the reference to the 1973 tour after posting the bond. The point is that Rawat had to post a bond – not the details of where he was planning to go once the bond was posted. 82.44.221.140 (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Prop #10 seems OK to me. The reason for explaining the bond is, IMO, needed as it explains why he had to post it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC) I don't think it would be terrible if we trimmed down the discussion of why he posted the bond. It should be self-evident: he wanted to travel outside of India. It's nice to have the rest of it, but if the concern is bloat, it might be worth considering. Mael-Num (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Why does P.10 delete reference to the international investigation? Why do we say "valuables" instead of "jewels", the term used by most sources? To me "jewels" is part of the deliberate sensationalism that surrounded this event at the time. The items were "valuables," that's the neutral term. As I recall, none of the newspaper accounts ever reported the fact that no charges were laid, nor the official apology. Rumiton (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC) How is this text The 1972 Hans Jayanti, a festival celebrating Rawat's father's birthday,[42] reportedly was attended by 500,000 people, including 2,500 who flew to India from the U.S. on seven chartered jumbo jets, and stayed for a month in the DLM's Indian ashrams. (p.10) better than this text: The 1972 Hans Jayanti, a festival celebrating Rawat's father's birthday,[33] attracted a reported total of 500,000 attendees, including 2,500 members from the U.S. who traveled on seven chartered jumbo jets and stayed a month at the DLM's Indian ashrams. (p.5) I don't see a benefit. I will try to answer these questions as they occur. This could get messy. I think Prop 10 is better, and not for POV reasons, mainly as better writing. "...attracted a reported total of 500,000 attendees" is lousy writing, and the "attendees" thing is redundant. "Members" isn't useful either. They were just people who wanted to see him in India. Rumiton (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC) This text: Two secretaries stated that they failed to declare them while going through customs. (p.10) is less accurate than this text: Two secretaries took responsibility for the valuables and for failing to declare them. (p.5) The second does not seem accurate to me. Maybe it should say that they stated that they had had responsibility for the valuables while on the aircraft, but that is very clumsy. I think the intention is to say they took responsibility for the mishap. It doesn't matter much, I can live with either but prefer the shorter version. Rumiton (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Why are we omitting Mata Ji's assertion that her son was mad at her for making him attend? If we want to shorten the text a good sentence to work on would be: ...but had been deposited by 3,000 followers in order to pay for local travel and food, and that other valuables were gifts for Rawat, his family and mahatmas. (p.10} That can be shortened to: ...but had been deposited by followers to pay for expenses, and that the jewelry and watches were gifts. Fine by me. Rumiton (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Simple copyediting can reduce some to the "bloat" that is bothering two editors who are preventing us from moving forward and making the edit. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Please be civil. Editors who are working together constructively to reach consensus are "not preventing us from moving forward" but engaging in discussion as per Wiki guidelines.Momento (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Can you please address the content issues? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Please be civil.Momento (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC) That's your response? Why are you posting a new version that fail to address concerns and contains even less information? How is that going to get us to a consensus? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC) I propose User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal1#Proposal 10 as a compromise proposal. It contains the essence of the incident. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC) So you don't think that any of the objections above have merit? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC) See my responses above. I will try to draft another version to try to reach a compromise. Rumiton (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC) I find I cannot. Prop 10 seems more than fine to me, and the only question I have is to do with the "investigation." Does this refer to the Government internal investigation into the way the affair was handled by the Indian Customs? What do the sources say? Rumiton (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Prop 11 I've removed "reportedly" from the attendance as all of this is "reportedly". And reordered so that the "charges were not laid" is next to the people who may have been charged. And connected Mataji's criticisms to the apology that was given for them.Momento (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Please address the issues I raised in the previous section. This version appears to be worse, not better. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC) I think we can all agree that using "reportedly" for attendance figures and not for all the other "reported" material is adding bias. The "charges" sentence obviously applies to the secretaries who made the mistake and should be connected to them. Likewise, what is the Indian government apologizing for? Presumably for it's treatment of Rawat as expressed by his mother, so they should be connected.Momento (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC) You're not addressing the issues already raised. The sentence on the secretaries distorts what is reported. "Valuable" is not as good a term as "jewels", because "jewels" is widely-used while "valuables" is not. It omits the international investigation and it omits the assertion by his mother that he was mad at her. If space is the isue then I again suggest we can trim the clause on expenses and gifts without losing important detail. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC) We do not all agree on your use/non-use of "reportedly". That's what was reported, that's not a bias. If you want to remove it for brevity, that's something else again, but if that's what was reported, that's not a bias. I doubt someone counted (if someone did, source it!), so it's at best a good estimate, removing that word shows bias. Now you're saying there was 5,000 people there, whether that's what was reported or not. That's not right. -- Maelefique (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC) <<< to much of a do about not nothing. The incident can be reported without unnecessary detail that detracts from the rest of the article by giving it too much weight. Let's move on, shall we? I believe Proposal #10 may be a version that we can all live with. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Considering there are complaints about it that haven't been addresed I don't agree. If you believe that then start another straw poll and see if it gets more support than Prop.5. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Straw polls are useless while there are discussions ongoing ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Prop. 12 I've posted Prop. 12. which is shorter yet. I addressed the concerns I'd posted above, about: the secretaries, the international investigation, the "valuables", the Mata Ji comments, plus the bond amount, was removed yet again. I hope this covers the length issues raies by Momento, Jayen, and Rumiton. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC) An international investigation into Rawat's finances was discussed in the Indian Parliament ????? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC) And the most significant piece of information, that the money belonged to 3,000 people to cover their travel expenses is missing. No, this proposal does not work whatsoever, sorry. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC) If those are the only objections I'll change those. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Done.[10] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Common sense should prevail: What is the point of the minutiae, the editorializing, and the inability to summarize this incident? What is needed is a simple presentation of the facts, without indulging in trivial details, and if anything needs to be emphasized is the fact that it was a mistake that was picked up by the hostile press of the 70s (see Jaen's comments above), and that the government apologized for an embarrassing mistake. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Almost there. I will sleep on it and comment tomorrow. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) That information is the same "context" you required that we add two weeks ago. Biography is all about details. Yes, this information was reported in the press. Lots of news is reported in the press. That's their job. We even describe how it some said it got bad press. But an international investigation is not bad press. It's an actual thing that happened. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC) What should be included is that many newspapers incorrectly accused Rawat of smuggling when - no charges were laid, Rawat was never involved with the money, others accepted responsibility and the Indian government apologized. The Mata JI claim about Rawat being upset to be there needs corroboration since Hans Jayanti was considered a major DLM festival and Rawat would never have missed it. Also, the way the section is written suggests Rawat may have been on the same plane. If this is corroborated it needs to be clarified.Momento (talk) 07:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Momento (talk) 07:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC) We say that the charges were never filed. One good source for Mata Ji's comments is enough. Rawat is on record as missing a variety of appearances around that time, so it's not exceptional that he would miss it or celebrate it in the U.S., as he did the following year. Do you mean same plane as the suitcase? I don't think that's said. It never says so or even implies that he was carrying it. But sources do imply thatit was carried by his entourage, which presumbly would travel on the same plane. If we can clear this up more later that's fine but we don't say anything unverifiable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC) I cannot find where it says that "the charges were never filed." Still not neutral, still not factual enough. Rumiton (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC) This juxtaposition clearly suggests that the Rawat and the suitcase were on the same plane - "Rawat arrived back in India on 7 November, on one of seven jets chartered to bring 2,500 followers from the U.S. A suitcase, containing cash, jewelry, and wristwatches[35][14] worth an estimated total of US$27,000 to $80,000, was not properly declared and was impounded by customs". What is the source for "entourage" please?Momento (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC) We have sources that more clearly indicate Rawat and the suitcase arrived together. See Current Biography Yearbook, Charles Moritz, ed. 1974. p. 256. Is that the only objection? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC) However I still don't see the implicit connection that you do. To me they are clearly represented as separate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC) This version is getting closer to a suitable compromise that we may all live with. What is needed is some tweaking: An international financial investigation was discussed in the Indian Parliament, and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was reported to have taken a personal interest. This is editorializing. Yes, the incident was discussed in Parlliament but saying " an international financial investigation" reeks of poor journalism, and this article is not a newspaper. Suggest replacing with The incident was discussed in the Indoan Parliament... Charges were never filed (Malgwadi) is missing Somehow, the fact that PR was 15 years old at the time needs to be highlighted, as it provides some nuanced context to the fact that he was a minor at the time. The Government did not apologize to Rawat. All we know is that the government issued an apology. To whom we don't know. Two secretaries took responsibility for the valuables and for failing to declare them. I am not sure that is what the source says. My understanding is that they stated that they failed to declare them, and that's all If these aspects are fixed, I would support this version, despite the fact that it is not my preferred version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC) A) It was a financial investigation, and it was international. Your suggested text doesn't include that. B) An omission. Fixed. C) His age is an entirely new point that no one has mentioned before. The previous complaints have been about adding too much info. Is this really an essential point that we all agree on? D) Fixed. E) One of the them took responsibility for being the owner of the suitcase, and one of them took responsibility for failing to declare it. A would omit important info, B & D are fixed, E is accurate now, and C is a minor point that shouldn't stop us from making this edit. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC) A - No, it wasn't. The sources do not describe such an "investigation" B - thanks C - Age is needed. He was a minor at the time and it this gets too often missed. D - OK E - What does the source says exactly? Fix these issues are we may be there... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC) "We were there" back on Prop.5, until Momento and Rumiton objected, and so until they stop objecting or we override them we can't make any progreess. We already agreed on the text regarding the secretaries. You have the sources too - read them yourself. It's not helpful to keep bringing up issues that have already been settled, or creating new ones like the age. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC) I have to agree with the suggestion to add his age in here. I knew he was young but not that young as I didn't do the calculation when contemplating this section. Including that the fact that he was 14 years old (assuming the festival was before his birthday in December) provides important context that may otherwise be lost on the first time reader. Surely just the addition of a few words in the first sentence will do, such as: Rawat, then aged 14, arrived back in India on 7 November on one of seven jets chartered to bring 2,500 followers from the U.S Also, I suggest a grammatical correction to the last para, substituting the first ‘and’ for a comma: Mata Ji said that customs officials had humiliated her son, that the Indian press had given his visit the worst possible coverage, and that her son was angry with her for convincing him to attend. 82.44.221.140 (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Thanks. These changes make sense. To Will Beback: If you find the consensus process too tedious, maybe you should consider stepping back a bit. There is no need to make assertions about "tendentiousness" while editors are having good discussions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Creating new demands after weeks of discussion is not helpful. I've made the changes proposed by 82.[11] Are there any further objections to Prop.12? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Well, maybe time is about right by now to get live footnotes in again. I can do footnote finetuning (as I have in prop. 8 - the ones in there can be used too if you like their formatting), but only if I'm sure which one goes where, that is: unless for those where I have the actual text of the source. For some of them I also know which one goes where traditionally, but maybe also time to do a check-up on that: with all the changes and so on maybe some sentences are now better referenced to other available sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC) The statement by Will that I've made the changes proposed by 82. finally pushed me over the line to create an account, though only a pseudonym for the moment.. This comment is to enable you all to make the connection, so you know who I am. Savlonn (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC) The top level investigation, in which Premier Mrs Indira Gandhi, as head of India's intelligence services, is taking a personal interest, began last November when Customs men at Delhi Airport had a tip from America that one of the divine bags was stuffed with jewels for the guru's mother plus sterling, dollars and travellers' cheques. The boy said they were nothing to do with him. Top executives in his mission team claimed that the money was to feed and house 350 American converts-in-the-making, who had flown in with him in the chartered jumbo jet he called his silver steed and were going on a three-week course at the imposing training academy on the banks of the Ganges. Special investigators from the revenue department have been trying to find out just how much he is worth and how much wealth the mission has accumulated in other countries. It is an offence in Indian law to have a bank account abroad without permission from the Treasury, but the guru set up in Britain as a charitable trust which banks all the income. Now the Indian Government will decide whether or not a charity abroad benefiting Indian nationals is contravening the law. The Indian Special Branch has its own interest in the guru. It fears that with or without the knowledge of the mission's hierarchy, spies or CIA agents might use the security of the mission as a cover. The Indian Home Office is also watching the boy. "The 'boy god' with a taste for ice cream...and the good things of life" Richard Herd Daily Mail, Thursday, July 12, 1973 - Page 21 This addresses a couple of issues - Jossi's claim that there was no financial investigation and Momento's concerns about the whether Rawat was travelling with the group. This shows the investigation involved several ministries. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC) CIA agent? This is not only funny but simply demonstrates the bias of the India of that time. We are talking about a 14 year old for Pete's sake. In any case, this is not an "international investigation" and if that is kept, context as poer the above source needs to be given, including the CIA allegations which have been made in other sources as well. I would advice to trim all that stuff into just what is needed instead. Let's keep this simple, folks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Ok, the source is poor (Daily Mail is a British Tabloid), but if there is a reliable source confirming the essence - that the Indian Internal Revenue department was investigating British trust funds, then this by definition is an "international investigation" and IMO the wording should stay. Even on the subjective side, I'm happy that the context of the term can imply 'big deal', as it obviously was. Savlonn (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC) The Daily Mail is published in tabloid format, but I don't see how that effects their reliability as a source. Jossi had earlier proposed using another article from it as a source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC) This is text that Jossi and I had already agreed upon, so I don't understand why he's now saying he's unaware of any international investigation. In addition to the Daily Mail article, which i'd just found, the basic source is an AP report that says: One senior member of the government said Indian diplomatic missions in countries where the guru's Divine Light Misson operates—including the United States and Britain —have been asked to investigate financial aspects of the movement. The government, he said, wants to determine whether the mission is violating Indian law, particularly regarding restrictions on Indian nationals having bank accounts and capital assets abroad. "Gifts for a Guru" AP, printed in Stars and Stripes November 15, 1972. I don't see how anyone can say there wasn't an international investigation when we have two sources that say there was. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC) This is not a newspaper, and editorializing is something I will oppose at all times in this and any other Wikipedia article. The text I propose (proposal #13) captures perfectly what is in the sources, and without generic extrapolations that serve no purpose. The main point in this "incident" is that it was an excercise in futility and the despite the reporting by wires, it ended up in an apology from the government. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Please explain what you mean by "editorializing". How is reporting the fact that there was an international investigation "editorializing"? This term appears to be like "tabloidesque" -thrown out in place of a rational argument. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC) There was an investigation, and it was international, you know it, I know it, and everyone else that reads the sources knows it, stop wasting everyone's (mostly Will's) time. If you have nothing constructive to add, please step out of the way while we actually accomplish something. And to suggest that an editor should step back from an article because he opposes your views is frankly, a little ridiculous. -- Maelefique (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Prop #13 Would this work? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC) It's fine with me except that it fails to mention the international investigation into the finances. All we need to do is add "international" to "An investigation was discussed..." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Not needed, Will. It says "finances abroad" as per the source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC) What's your objection? You accepted the material before, in P5. Are you going to hold up the consensus over an insistence on omitting the word "international", which is sourced and neutral? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC) 5 bucks says yes. -- Maelefique (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC) This phrase "An investigation was discussed in the Indian Parliament about the wealth the mission abroad" doesn't make sense. It that supposed to be "the wealth of the mission abroad"? If so, that's not what the investigation was about. Please stick closer to sources. -- Maelefique (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC) P12 -An international financial investigation was discussed in the Indian Parliament, and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was reported to have taken a personal interest. P13 - An investigation was discussed in the Indian Parliament about the wealth the mission abroad, and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was reported to have taken a personal interest. I don't see how P13 is an improvement on P12. It doesn't make any sense grammatically. How about this, which is less passive: The Indian goverment conducted an international investigation into the DLM's finances, which were discussed in parliament. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi reportedly took a personal interest. That covers the same ground and is easier to read. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Also, I disagree that we need Rawat's age in this paragraph, we already have the year, the article is arranged chronologically, and we have the info box giving his birthdate. Anyone who can't do the math and arrive at "14" probably isn't reading WP (or anything else!) in the first place. -- Maelefique (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC) I didn't realize that he was 14 until Jossi made the suggestion to include his age. As per my previous comment, I didn't do the calculation. As soon as I realized, it really changed the whole context of this section for me. I don't understand your disagreement as adding those 3 words "then aged 14" can only help clarify the section; I can't see any reason not to include this. Please explain how adding these 3 words detracts from or adds bias to the article? Savlonn (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC) I agree [with Maelefique], but I don't see any harm in it. I honestly don't see why his age is important for this paragraph but not for the paragraphs before or after. But if it will get us towards an agreement on this material then let's just add it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC) I might have been unclear, I don't have a problem with it being in there if, as Will said, it moves us along. I just don't agree that it's necessary in a paragraph that we pretty much had done, and then we needed to shorten.... by adding more words about his age?? -- Maelefique (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Yep - I agree with you both to focus on getting this section wrapped up, rather than debating the less important details. On that note, it seems that we were just one word away "international" from agreement on Proposal 12 - can't we all just rewind to that point? Savlonn (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC) <<< I honestly don't see why his age is important for this paragraph. In all honesty I do not understand why you don't see the importance. That concerns me a great deal... As for the "international investigation" that is editorializing. An "international investigation" has undesirable connotations, and innuendo that you may have missed as well. I stand by the text I proposed in 13, which is close to the source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC) No one thought the age issue was important enough to include in the previous 18 drafts, so please let's not get on our high horses and imply that anyone who doesn't want it included is a bad editor. Nobody has said it can't be there. I don't know anything about innuendo or connotations. The fact is that there was an investigation that spanned several countries. If you prefer not to say "international" then we can "stay close to the source" which says countries where the guru's Divine Light Misson operates—including the United States and Britain. 'The Indian goverment conducted an investigation into the DLM's finances, including in the U.S. and U.K., which was discussed in parliament. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi reportedly took a personal interest. I hope that's "innuendo-free". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC) No. It is not innuendo free. You are asserting your opinion. The discussion in the parliament is the only fact. There are no sources that report that investigations took place at all. See my comment below. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC) What opinion is being asserted? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC) As for the mentioning of the age, it is not about being a "bad editor". It is about the impression that results from edits that omits significant details, while paying close attention to other less significant details of the incident. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC) If we're going to mention his age in this regard we should mention that his age was contested. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Contested? Do you mean the mention in India that he was an old man in a body of a midget? lol. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC) You know exactly what I mean. When the subject returned to India there were claims that he had lied about his age and was really several years older. If you think that its importnat to include his age in reference to this matter then the part of the story where his age was disputed is also relevant. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Sure, feel free to add it. It will be interesting to describe the nutty stories that were made up by those that opposed the young Prem Rawat. Even Gagan refers to this... lol. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC) I do not see what is the problem of stating, as per the source that An investigation was discussed in the Indian Parliament about the wealth the mission abroad, and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was reported to have taken a personal interest. Note that there are no sources that report any results from these purported investigation, only that is was discussed. Let's stay close to the sources, please≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC) I don't understand your point. The source says: One senior member of the government said Indian diplomatic missions in countries where the guru's Divine Light Misson operates—including the United States and Britain —have been asked to investigate financial aspects of the movement. People are asked to investigate = investigation. Countries where the guru's Divine Light Misson operates—including the United States and Britain =international. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC) People could be told not to investigate, shortly after being told to investigate. Then there'd be no investigation. The Daily Mail article makes it clear an investigation went on in India for some months, but (unless I missed it, which is quite possible), there's no source saying the diplomatic missions actually did any investigating, in the end. Hypnotist uk (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC) You're right that just because someone says something is going to happen doens't mean it actually happens. But if we have no evidence to the contrary then we can usually assume that the plan was carried out. If a government official says that people "have been asked" to investigate, we shouldn't assume he's lying without a reason. And we should assume that the people investigated as they were asked to do unles we have evidence showing they didn't. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC) "An investigation was discussed in the Indian Parliament about the wealth the mission abroad"... for the second time, either you're quoting it badly, or it's just poor english, or you missed out a word, that phrase makes no sense. please fix. -- Maelefique (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC) What is the problem? Yes, an investigation was discussed in the Parliament. Factually accurate as per the sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC) "... about the wealth the mission abroad" doesn't make sense. Hypnotist uk (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Please be civil in your edit summaries.Momento (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Can you point out the specific edit summary? Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 08:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Ah, I saw the edit summary you were referring to. Yes, let's all be civil. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 08:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC) I think I was one of the few people here who was affected by the way this incident was reported in 1972. I had received Knowledge only a couple of weeks before, and was starting to feel the kindness and joy it has, and that Prem Rawat has. At lunch, a workmate was reading that day's Melbourne Age, a highly reputable Australian broadsheet, the essence of a "reputable source." The article was headed something like "Boy Guru Accused of Watch Smuggling." I recall how cynically the chap said, "See! It's just another rip-off." And I recall how sick I felt. It wasn't until a month later that someone showed up in Melbourne who was on the flight and told me what actually happened, and I heard about the Government apology. The Age reported neither of them, and no doubt many people still think of Maharaji as a smuggler. This article needs to start to redress that. YES, it is important that Prem Rawat was 14 years old at the time, and YES the highlight needs to be on the "no charges ever filed" and the government apology. Rumiton (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC) That's an interesting anecdote Rumiton, but as Jossi has drilled into all of us many times, truth is not as important as verifiability, and these are the things our sources have to say about it. -- Maelefique (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC) A little truth now and again probably doesn't hurt. Rumiton (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC) I would totally agree (and personally, do), except it's against WP guidelines when there's a conflict, to go with truth instead of sources. I'm sure Jossi has the policy on speed-dial if we try and go against it. -- Maelefique (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Prop #14 How about this? Please explain the change and it's reasoning. I appears to me that the main change is to say that an investigation was only suggested. That doesn't agree with sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Prop #13 is the factually correct version. An investigation was discussed, and we do not know more that this fact. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC) I'm concerned that editors, like me, without access to many of the sources used (Stars & Stripes, Syracuse Post etc) are unable to see the context in which some of these claims are made. Could Will please provide links to these sources?Momento (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC) I'd be happy to send you any clippings you'd like. Just email me a request. I've made this offer before. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC) The quotes from Daily Mail, AP, Stars & Stripes, etc. are clear and unamibguous; an international investigation was undertaken. Will has already compromised beyond what I feel is necessary by dropping the reference to 'international' I will not accept any further weakening of this point as I strongly agree it then becomes a distortion that doesn't agree wih the sources. Stating that such an investigation occured is not 'editorializing' (implication of opinion making) but an impartial, self-evident summary of the sourced information.Savlonn (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC) I think that you are misunderstanding the dispute, Savlon. Will BeBack proposal: An international financial investigation was discussed in the Indian Parliament, and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was reported to have taken a personal interest. My proposal: An investigation was discussed in the Indian Parliament about the wealth the mission abroad, and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was reported to have taken a personal interest. That's all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC) There are three outstanding issues here. The first is ambiguity with your (Jossi's) proposal. "An investigation was discussed in the Indian Pariliament" could be interpreted as the Indian Parliament discussing whether an investigation should be undertaken. The second is that it needs to be clearly stated that the investigation was into the financial aspects (of the DLM) following the customs incident. It is a distortion to say that the investigation was about the 'wealth' of the moment. The third is the previous argument that it should be correctly referred to as an International Investigation.Savlonn (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC) The ambiguity you mention, is on both proposals. My proposal includes wording that refers to "the wealth the mission abroad", which is close to the sources used. There is no mention of an "international investigation" in the sources provided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Jossi, I'm not sure why you continue to ignore it, but I'm going to keep asking, what the heck does "the wealth the mission abroad" mean? IT MAKES NO SENSE. Can you please correct it, you keep repeating it, I keep asking, you keep ignoring, how many times do I need to ask? Just let me know, I'll type 'em all out. -- Maelefique (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC) "The wealth the mission <insert verb here> abroad" was how I was reading it, but I have no idea what verb is intended. Held? Stashed? Reported? Buried? Distributed? Ignited? Hypnotist uk (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC) The verb is at the beginning of the sentence. "An investigation was discussed..." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC) As Maelefique says, if that is the case the word "of" is missing. Hypnotist uk (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Yes, the "of" been taken care of. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Or it could be as simple as "the wealth OF the mission abroad", it would be nice to find out what Jossi is trying to say, especially since he keeps saying it. Should I ask a 5th time yet? -- Maelefique (talk) 07:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Progress User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat: 1972 Hans Jayanti paragraph, introducing version 6/7 hybrid per User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal1 - in order to start on the ref finetuning and other cpedit [12] --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Copied to User:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat/Proposal1#Proposal_8 --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Way premature, Francis. I am not sure what the significance of adding this material to the "sandbox" article is, but you have no consensus for it. It is just one of several proposals. I much prefer Proposal 10. Let's talk about that. Rumiton (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC) In fact, your sandbox edits over the last few hours appear to be making a mockery of this entire consensus-seeking process. Please revert them yourself and carry on discussing proposed changes. Thank you. Rumiton (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC) See Talk:Prem Rawat#Proposed update #2: 1972 Hans Jayanti and grouping of Downton refs --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC) How does this look? A revision of the investigation conducted by Parliament, Gandhi, et al. The investigation, which continued into the summer of 1973, was discussed in the Indian Parliament and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, was reported to have taken an interest in the matter. Indian diplomatic missions in several countries, including the United States and the United Kindom, were asked to investigate the Divine Light Mission's capital assets and bank accounts abroad, which were restricted for Indian nationals under Indian law. Mael-Num (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Adding whom was investigaged. Mael-Num (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Adding "Indian nationals". Mael-Num (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Subtract "intelligence" (Har Har) Mael-Num (talk) 01:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Is this one of the proposals? which one am I looking at now? (uhh, it's not a party guessing game, I mean, which one should I direct my attention to :) ) thanks. -- Maelefique (talk) 03:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Not as yet, Mael. I was trying to guage if the language used here to describe the "investigations abroad" portion of a yet-unmade proposal would be amenable to everyone. Mael-Num (talk) 03:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC) That looks fine to me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Looks ok to me too, except...(drum-roll anyone?), move the comma after "Gandhi" to after "Parliament", and what the heck, let's say we throw a G in "Kindom" if we get really bored. :) Or, we could just repeat some nonsensical phrase over and over and ignore it every time someone says "that doesn't make sense", whichever. -- Maelefique (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC) I hope we can keep it as short as possible. It'd be more direct to say: The finances of Rawat and the DLM at home and abroad were investigated by the Indian government through the summer of 1974. PM Gandhi took a personal interest in the case, which was discussed in parliament. The information about Indian fiscal laws is important context, but at some point a good link is worth a thousand words. I'm sure there must be a link to Indian Currency laws or some such, and we can add a short line or phrase to cover it. Let's keep this bit short. Any objections to this fresh formulation? It's not perfect, but is it good enough? (PS: we only have one proposal slot left on this page. Can we make it?) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Heh, it's never a limit at 15, I just never foresaw so many proposals. If it's really necessary, I can add more slots :) Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 07:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC) I don't think we can shorten Prime Minister to PM, other than that, still no objection here. I like the idea of shortening this whole paragraph, are we going to end up with proposal 5 again? :) -- Maelefique (talk) 08:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Re: "PM" Yes, that was just editing shorthand. Wikipedia doesn't use abbreviations (much). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC) P1.15 Is this good enough? It's P1.13 plus the text discussed above. Can we agree and move on? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Getting there, but not as yet. You write "The finances of Rawat and the DLM at home and abroad were investigated by the Indian government through the summer of 1974.". But we do not know if and and how long that "investigation" took. There is no material in the sources that describe an investigation of "Rawat finances". Your text is OR and unsupported by the sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC) What part isn't supported by sources? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC) What part isn't sourced? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC) An investigation by Indian diplomatic missions in several countries, about the wealth of the mission abroad was discussed in the Indian Parliament. and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was reported to have taken a personal interest. is a more accurate presentation of all proposals. I am addng this wording to Proposal 13≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC) You have a period after "Parliament", change the period to a comma, and it's there, at least grammar-wise. (Otherwise, you have a sentence that starts with "and", and it's not capitalized). -- Maelefique (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC) There is no comma needed after suitcase, but more importantly "took responsibility" is not neutral. It creates a suggestion they "took the rap" for the wicked, watch-smuggling guru. A previous version that said they "stated that they had omitted to declare them" or words to that effect was better. Change that sentence and we have a wrap. From my side. Rumiton (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC) "Took responsibility" is in a source, if I recall correctly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Could you re-check this please? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC) A high government source said it was unlikely there would be any prosecution of the guru, since his Indian personal secretary who traveled with him had accepted responsibility for the suitcase. But he added that the government is concerned about the growing financial resources of the Divine Light Mission abroad, especially in the United States, where the American devotees recently purchased two small airplanes for the guru's use. We can change it to "accepted responsibilty" if Rumiton thinks "took" is somehow prejudicial. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC) "Accepted responsibility" is apparently the original. You changed it to "took responsibilty" to introduce the biased tone you appear to find necessary for this article. Rumiton (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Just note, I can make a spot for Proposal 16 if needed, but by now, I think it would be best if the current proposal is worked through until we have a consensus for the edit. I still have a request, Prem Rawat is unprotected, as I do agree that it was no longer necessary, however that I still be the one who determines the consensus, and make the edit myself? Probably the best way to do it, I think. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 19:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC) I agree, Steve, that you should be the only one making the determination that 1) consensus has been reached; and 2) that you be the one to make the actual edits to the page. I think that will save time and misunderstandings. Thanks! Sylviecyn (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Proposal 16 User:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat/Proposal1#Proposal_16 "took" >> "accepted" Hope this one can be the one... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Since the investigation also looked into Rawat's taxes I think the formulation I've proposed is more accurate: The finances of Rawat and the DLM at home and abroad were investigated... P1.16 makes it appear that the investigation was solely into DLM assets. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Agree with Will. And can we please get rid of English American tour.Momento (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Looks OK now to me. The tour is overkill, but the article is full of that anyway. Rumiton (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC) I will make the changes suggested, despite that fact that see these as problematic (1. What taxes can be investigated of a 14-year old boy.; 2. If we say that h has to post bond and don't say why, it is simply not right) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC) What is our source for the "500,000 attendees"? The way it reads, it seems awfully factual, as opposed to either a "press released" number, or a reasonable estimate of the number, which are two more likely ways they arrived at that number. I doubt we have a concrete "500,000 tickets sold" type of count. -- Maelefique (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC) A barometer of the guru's attraction was a "Hans Jayanti" festival in India in November, in which more than 500,000 persons participated. Seven Boeing 747s were chartered in the United States to carry Western disciples to the festival and for a .month-long stay in the ashrma (a stage in the Brahmanic scheme of life) of Guru Maharaj Ji. This is an unsigned piece from what some might call a 2nd-rate newspaper. I think I've also seen the number in books, but I don't have time right now to check. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Was that number from an UPI wire? I cannot find the reference. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC) I think it would be preferable then, to change that wording in the article to "over 500,000 attendees", it lets the reader know there was many people but we don't have an exact count. The way it reads now, that 500,000 seems very factual and precise, when it isn't. I would make the edit, but I don't have the source to add. -- Maelefique (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC) P1.16 seems to have lost the parliamentary discusion. Any reason? That seems important. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC) I made the changes as requested. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Would this work: "An investigation into the finances of Rawat and the DLM at home and abroad were discussed in the Indian Parliament, and Indira Gandhi was reported to have taken a personal interest." If not, pls propose alternate text. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC) I object to the removal of "Prime Minister" here, I think far more readers are familiar with "Prime Minister" than "Indira Gandhi" (sadly). If we want to remove "Indira Gandhi", and replace it with "Indian Prime Minister", I would be ok with that. -- Maelefique (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC) or "Prime Minister Gandhi", but that's mildly ambiguous, there's been more than one (although not as bad if linked to the correct article). -- Maelefique (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Jossi's wikifying of the name works too. happy happy. -- Maelefique (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Proposal 16 is ok for me. Savlonn (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC) The wording looks great to me. It conveys all the important points, and moves along briskly. My only question: if there was an issue with conflicting reports of the number of jumbo jets chartered[13], is it best to say "seven"? Would it be better to say "several", a rare instance where being less specific is more factual? Mael-Num (talk) 03:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Rereading that link, ditto for 2500? Perhaps "at least 2500"? I understand the reasoning behind the numbers as they are now: Will is saying to take one reliable source and go specifically with their numbers, and I'm fine with that option, too. I just want to make sure everyone knows that's what they're agreeing with. Mael-Num (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC) There were seven chartered Jumbo jets, and others arrived on commercial flights, for a total of 9 planes. The number of people is stated in other sources 3,000. I would not make a big deal of this, though. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Five, six, or seven, even nine: it's not a big difference. I'll note that some have claimed it was the first significant chartering of 747s, and was the largest civilian airlift-to-date. At this point those claims are hard to evaluate. (The 1973 festival may have had as many as 33 chartered flights.) We're not making any similar claims. This proposed treatment is conservative even if it uses the highest number of flights for the 1972 festival. If need be we can throw in an "approximately". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Here's my proposed alterate: The finances of Rawat and the DLM at home and abroad were investigated by the Indian government. Indira Gandhi took a personal interest in the case, which was discussed in parliament. That keeps the main verb from being "was discussed", though it's still used. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC) OK ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC) This latest version looks good to me. I think it accurately covers the event and gives the right weight to it too. I see no need for improvement. I endorse this version. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC) I am OK with it, too. Rumiton (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Seems like we could be close to an agreement here :D. Perhaps a curtosey message to the other parties, asking them to have a look at the proposal, and give their opinion, would be the fastest way to get an agreement, and then the edit made. Also, don't think I have been ignoring this case, I've been watching over it, I just have felt that you are all doing reasonably well in discussing this, and I think there's not a lot, at least in this proposal, except to let you all discuss your edits. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 12:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Messaging everybody imposes an unnecessary burden. Consensus is reached by active participation, not by a sudden intervention of uninterested people, at the end of weeks of work by active participants. The process should be: when we feel close to an agreement, we make a deadline in the form: "Edit will be made by June XX, 00 UTC unless an objection is made substantiated by solid arguments" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Consensus is reached by active participation, yes. Not by a deadline. We are not working to a timeline here, we are working to consensus. If the vast majority of the active editors on this page are happy with proposal 16, let's add the edit. If not, let's fix it. It looks like we are pretty happy with 16, myself included. I can see only one active editor who hasn't given it his approval yet, Momento. I say give him a day or two at most, and if he doesn't find any objection, make the edit, afterall, consensus isn't unanimity anyway. -- Maelefique (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC) I'm OK with it but it seems all we've added to the original is unnecessary stuff about the secretaries, the Indian parliament and Rawat's mother, none of which alters the fundamental facts as found in the original. And I still have doubts about Mata Ji comments but I haven't seen the original.Momento (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Well, how about we iron out those issues, then implement the changes, per the consensus that appears to be here. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 04:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Before we do too much more, can Momento be a little more clear? His first words are "I'm ok with it" but the rest of his comment seems to indicate that he is not ok with it, despite not having seen the original sources. I don't want to go editing further if we are all happy with #16, but I don't want to trample over Momento if he has objections to this proposal either. -- Maelefique (talk) 04:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC) If Momento says he's OK with it then we should take that to mean he's OK with it. If he's not objecting then that's fine. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Had I come home and found the edit made, I wouldn't have objected. As I said above, there's a lot more material that doesn't add much substance and that will become more important when looking at the article as a hole. In terms of, is this section or incident worth the space we've allocated to it compared to other stuff. More importantly I've finally figured out what I don't like about about Mata Ji's comment. I'm happy for her to say what she thinks about the customs and the press, she entitled to an opinion and it makes for a bit of light relief but I'm not happy with including a report of what she says Rawat did. It's one thing for her and the reporters to voice what she thinks but we have only her word for what Rawat did. And since it puts Rawat in a negative light, cursing your mother in India is treason, I think it should be omitted.Momento (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC) We've already adresed that concern - the text doesn't say that Rawat cursed Mata Ji. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC) As of today, 8:22 eastern standard time, P.16 looks good. :) Sylviecyn (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Proposal to go ahead with the edit Let's do this edit, as it has all the traits of having reached consensus. Sure. I am not 100% happy with all of it, but I can live with it. Unless there are serious objections substantiated by solid arguments, I propose the edit is made by Steve at 00:00 UTC June 14. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC) How far away is that, by the way? Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 15:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC) It's 10 a.m. Saturday morning, Steve. Can you pay someone to be up for you at that time? :D Rumiton (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Steve: You are UTC +10 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC) I'll get my wife to wake me up :) Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 15:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC) (OT) Married? Yay! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Yes, married :D. Ahem puts on, boring, serious mediator look ;). Alright, I'll be awake at that time. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 16:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC) I'm sure that it'll be fine if Steve makes the edit whenever it's convenient. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Must I wait for another whole hour? It's more convenient for me now. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 23:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Go ahead, Steve. I am sure that it would be OK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC) It should go in the "Leaving India" section, replacing the second paragraph. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)  Done, however, this reference needs to be corrected. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 23:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC) Side discussion Is this a joke or what? Are we having such detailed discussions here when other editors do as they please editing the article directly? How can these discussions be held when that kind of stuff happens? This shows a total disregard for this process to which we have all agreed upon, and it is disrespectful of these editors that have chosen to take the hard path of reaching consensus despite differences. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC) There are other pages to discuss the mediation. Let's stick to discussing this piece of text. So far everyone seems OK with it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC) I pick "or what". Are you trying to stop our progress here now? A little focus is needed right here/now, not unrelated problems. I don't know why you feel so disrespected, I don't. When we get to the part of the article he edited, if we don't agree with it, I'm sure we can arrive at consensus again and change it to something we're all happy with. -- Maelefique (talk) 05:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC) I don't feel disrespected either. Let's keep the discussion here focused upon the proposal. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)