Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Succession: no facts and hence alternative versions should be mentioned

(original comment copied from above) I would like to remove most of the references to Mishler's interview in the 'succession to his father's mantle' section. Mishler's account is secondhand, and there is no verification of his claims. So it should not be 'according to Mishler', but rather 'according to a story Mishler heard'. The degree of conjecture and rumour is not befitting of a reputable encyclopedia, wiki or otherwise. In any forum, hearsay evidence is not acceptable. In addition, the perspective of any person fired from an organisation must be treated with caution. Further, the facts are incorrect; Mishler did not have 'a falling out with Rawat in 1997'. In summary, nothing allegedly reported by Mishler has any credibility. If some discussion is necessary, it should be on the 'criticism' pages, clearly labelled as hearsay. **Armeisen 22:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

As there has been no further discussion of this, I have changed it as noted above. **Armeisen 22:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree with the deletion by Armeisen of Mishler's alternative view of the succession. The traditional view hinges around the reliablity of Rawat and his family who had every reason to portray their family's guru business in the best possible light. Rawat's mother may have had no source of income after Hans died and she had four boys to raise. So I think a lot of skepticism is required. Hence I think that alternative views must be mentioned, such as the one by Mishler. Note that Mishler was Rawat's confident, according to the radio interview with Mishler. I find it very likely that Rawat confided to Mishler the true story of the succession. Andries 20:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

If we do not gave recorded facts, that does not mean that a 2nd-hand story or hearsay is an alternative. I would also advise about making conjectures about what a person may have heard and from whom: that is not our role as editors. I support the removal of that content, unless new material/sources are found that discuss the succession.≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 21:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

well, there is every reason to believe that ex-president of the DLM, Mishler, had a lot of inside information. And the story by Rawat and his family is very doubtful, so I think that the story by Mishler should be included. Andries 08:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)\

We have to describe an event that it is an essential part of Rawat's start of his public life for which we only have two somewhat doubtful sources. Logically we should use those two sources and not just one doubtful source. Andries 10:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

There is only one fact: That Prem Rawat was accepted as the successor by his family and remained committed to him until the rift 8 years later. Mishler's story as told is not factual and cannot be considered a factual source. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 12:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The current text reads:

"Prem Rawat succeeded to the leadership of the DLM upon his father's death in 1966[5], which, as he noted, was unusual since he was not the eldest child. The family told American reporters during the early 1970s that Shri Hans was away from home at the time of his death and wrote a letter home to the family essentially naming Prem as his successor. Whilst there has been some conjecture about the process of Maharaji's succession, it is clear that Prem continued to speak and inspire in the same way that his father had done, and supporters describe him as comforting grieving devotees and declaring his intention to continue his father's work. His family's support lasted for another eight years."

That is all factually correct. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 12:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree with the word "conjecture" in the article. Mishler's view may not be conjecture. The above excerpt describes (and certainly what follows the excerpt) describes not only facts, but also the family's view ("The family told American reporters") on the succession. Mishler view was attributed and was never presented as "factual", as you incorrectly suggest. It is also a fact that Mishler had a totally different view on the matter than the family. And this fact should be mentioned too. Andries 12:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

What word would you like to use? The fact is that Mishler was not there and the family was. What he though of the sucession or what he heard about it from a source that he does not name is of no consecuence to this article, very obviously. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 12:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I would say that it is not a "conjecture" but Mishler's "alternative description of the succession" that, I believe, is based on inside revelations that he must have heard plenty from Rawat and Mahatmas as president of the DLM, very obviously. We can (and should state) that he was not there and then it is up to the reader to decide. Andries 18:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I would continue to argue that hearsay and interpretations of a person based on a story told by an unknown/unnamed source about such an important milestone on Prem Rawat's biography is not acceptable for the purpose of this encyclopedia. If this was an essay, a commentary, or a similar writing, speculating about his sources, "beliefs" that "he must have had inside revelations", etc. could be acceptable. But not in here. Sorry. Conjecture is a very approriate word to describe Mishler's story: Conjecture:' speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence) . ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

No, there is no proof that it is based on speculation or conjecturing. Mishler may have heard it from several independent inside sources. A lot of people will find Rawat's extraordinary version of the event more doubtful and implausible than Mishler's. Wikipedia guidelines proscribe that extraordinary claims need extraordinary evdence. This is the talk page and I have the right to speculate here on the source that Mishler may or not have had. Of course, I won't speculate in the article. Andries

These are not Rawat extraordinary version. These are reported by his familiy to journalists. Following your argument of " extraordinary claims need extraordinary evdence", that certainly applies to Mishler's account. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

No, a supernatural explanation as described by Rawat is certainly extraordinary, unlike Mishler's version. And the version by Mishler is also reported by journalists, just like the version by Rawat's family. I see in that respect no difference. Andries 19:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

We are not discussing Prem Rawat's version of the events. This is his biography and including his version of events is encyclopedic (to say the least). Let people make their ow assessment if these are supernatural, extraordinary, or not. In addition we also have the version of events of people present at that moment: their family. The objection is the insertion of conjucture and speculation by a person that was not there and that did not name his sources. That is the only point we are discussing. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 20:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no proof that this is mere speculation and conjecture. There is very good reason to think otherwise. Of course,

Rawat's version of the event does matter: if it had been proven by documentation then, I would agree, that Mishler has no place here. 20:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I could use the same argument as you: if Mishler account were to be supported by documentation, I would agree that his account could be included. But an account based on a second-hand story, is conjecture, speculation and not permissible. Note that this is Prem Rawat's bio and not Mishler's. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 20:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

How do you know that it is speculation and conjecture and not based on inside revelations? Andries 21:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

We do not konw if it is speculation (my opinion) or inside revelation (your opinion). The only thing we know 'for certain is that (1) Mishler was not there; (2) He heard a story by an unnamed source; My point is that regardless of your or my opinion, an account from a person that was not there and that does not name his sources cannot be placed alongside accounts of protagonists that were there at that moment: Prem Rawat himself, and his family, (that continued to support him as a successor for eight years after that). ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 21:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The difference between your proposal and my proposal is that you try to excluse one version. Andries 21:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The difference between Armeisen's version and yours is that he eliminated an account that is second-hand and based on hearsay, as clearly explained by him at the top of this section. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 21:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

In general, it is up to the reader to assess credibility, not to us. When assessing what should be included, the context is important. One of the aspects of the context is Mishler's version gives an explanation of the fact that that most unusually in India, the youngest son was chosen as a successor, not the oldest. I will ask for a request for comments because we continue to disagree. Andries 04:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The issue of the primogenitury and the fact that is was unusual is is a verifiable fact (Prem Rawat was the youngest, not the eldest). I have added that fact and deleted the the rest of Mishler's second hand account from unnamed source. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 21:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

To summarize

Andries assertion that there are no facts is misleading. There are facts. Hence, to maintain factual accuracy this is needed:

• Include any and all facts presented by protagonists that were there at the time of the succession: Prem Rawat himself, his family, and any other witnesses;
• Include obvious facts such as that it was unusual that the primogeniture principle was abandoned;
• Exclude speculation on how and why the primogeniture principle was abandoned;
• Include facts such as that his family (mother and brothers) accepted the succession for the subsequent eight years;
• Exclude hearsay/second hand account by other people that were not there and that do not name their sources.

≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 21:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Well i think Bob Mishler words about the succesion should be mentioned though, maybe not in your official section, but the mere fact that the revised history of SatPal's club complies now with the wished agenda of Mata Ji at that time, gives some weight to the words of Bob Mishler, even if they are second hand. On the other hand i wonder about your urge for strictness, compared to the flooding of quotes in the articles which are obvious public relation technics. Here i see your limits of neutrality. Will your truthfullness stand for Wikipedia to label such a strategy as what it is, or is the service for the master what has more weight?Thomas h 14:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Thomas, I would appreciate if you can remain on purpose and discuss the edits on their merits, and leave it at that. Please note that any and all attempt by yuo or others to drag this discussion to other areas not related to the aticle itself, will be ignored.

Now to the matter at hand: If you think that a hearsay account that is not corroborated by any of the protagonists that were there at the time, and that was made 2 years after Mishler was fired needs to be included, you need to present convincing arguments to support it. So far, neither you, nor Andries have managed to provide a sensible argument that is supported by Wikipedia policy of factual accuracy. On the other hand, if you can find a witness that was there at the time that presents an account similar or supportive of Mishler's second-hand account, please add it to the article. Thanks.

The only external source we have at the moment is Sacred Tensions: Modernity and Religious Transformation in Malaysia by Raymond Lee, in which he writes "Upon the death of his founder in 1996 1966, one of his sons, Guru Maharaj ji, assumed leadership of the movement and won the hearts of many young Westerners." (p.109). ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

does it really say 1996? And to name the son "Guru Maharaji ji" is that appropriate for a well researched topic? I see we have differences in our view what an accurate source really is. To me Bob Mishlers statements make much more sense indeed.Thomas h 17:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

My typo it should say 1966. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that the Wikipedia policy does not support the inclusion of the version by Mishler. Biographies should contain relevant information that has a certain minimum of credibility. I think that Mishler's version belongs here if properly attributed etc. The information that David V. Barrett provides is even vaguer than the information by Raymond Lee. Andries 16:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. My argument is that Mishler's second hand account from an unamed source, does not pass the threshold of minimum credibility, and factual accuracy. The only accuracy is the fact that he told of this uncorroborated account on a radio interview. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t •@ 17:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, at least we agree about the abstract criteria for inclusion. Assessing the credibility of Mishler's account is obviously a subjective matter. If reasonably possible assessing credibility of an account should be left to readers. Andries 17:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

And by whom is the story of Rawat and his family corroborated? By nobody. Who had more reasons to present a distorted picture? Clearly, Rawat and his family. Andries 17:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

And I fully agree with Thomas that your insistence on excluding everything but bare facts in the section Succession shows your double standards, because this article consists of about 90% of non-facts and opinions. Andries 16:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

So, we keep disagreeing. You said that you will ask for an RfC? Please do so. ≈ jossi fresco ≈

t • @ 17:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

done. Andries 17:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Ammended for accuracy, as follows. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 18:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Should an uncorroborated, second-hand account by a person that was not present at the time of the succession by Prem Rawat of his father, included alongside corroborated accounts by protagonists? #

I do not agree with this one-sided formulation of the Rfc. I will revert or change. The version by Rawat and his family is also uncorroborated and I added that Mishler asserted to be Rawat's confidant and ex-president of the Rawat's organization Andries 18:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The accounts by the family and by Prem Rawat are corroborated by them, as they were protagonists at these events. Mishler's account is by an unknown/unnamed person and hence uncorroborated and un-corroboratable. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I disagree, a person making an account cannot corroborate his own account. Andries 19:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they can. They can say: "I was there and that happened". Ammended further as follows: ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I would not call that a corroboration, but a repetition of an earlier statements. It is easy to say that "I was there and that happened". Even I can say that. Andries 19:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Should an uncorroborated, second-hand account, with no sources named, made by a person that was not present at the time of the succession by Prem Rawat of his father, included alongside accounts by protagonists that were present? Note that the person in question was the president of the Rawat's organization, claimed to be Rawat's confidant and made these comments two years after leaving the organization and became a critic.

one more to go, since the family seems to be a worthy source on behalf of the succession it must be stated that nowadays the election of Rawat never really happened, at least from their representation. Mata Ji took over the leadership until SAt Pal was old enough to follow in his father's mantle. If they were worthy then they are definitely worthy now Thomas h 17:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

One way to resolve this is to make sure that the reader understands that: 1. The interview with Mishler is alleged to have taken place; 2. That Mishler's testimony, as a person who was no longer involved, may be tainted; 3. That Mishler is dead, and thus cannot be further consulted; 4. That he may (or may not) have heard the story; that is, it is gossip. These are facts. Let's just state the facts. ++Armeisen 12:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

RfC Summaries

Should a second-hand account, with no sources named, made by a person that was not present at the time of the succession by Prem Rawat of his father, included alongside witness' accounts by protagonists? Note that the person in question was the president of the Rawat's organization, claimed to be Rawat's confidant and made these comments two years after leaving the organization and became a critic.

---

My summary of what should be included regarding the succession. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Include external sources and citacions about the succession;
• Include any and all facts presented by protagonists that were there at the time of the succession: Prem Rawat himself, his family, and any other witnesses;
• Include obvious facts such as that it was unusual that the primogeniture principle was abandoned;
• Include facts such as that his family (mother and brothers) accepted the succession for the subsequent eight years;
• Exclude hearsay/second hand accounts by other people that were not there and that do not name their sources;
• Exclude speculation on how and why the primogeniture principle was abandoned;
• Avoid making assessment of what materials to include based on editor's opinions of plausibility of allegations ([[See WP:NOR)
• Avoid speculation about the reasons of protagonists as a basis for inclusion/exclusion of content (See WP:NOR

---

Here is my summary of what should be included. Andries 19:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Include all versions from doubtful sources. There are unfortunately no reliable sources for the event of succession of Rawat's father. Leave the assessment of the credibility of the accounts to the reader. This includes

• Mentioning all facts, such as the very unusual breach of primogeniture and the fact that the brothers and mother accepted Rawat's succession for 8 years
• Version of Prem Rawat and his family who had every reason to put their guru business in the best possible light
• Version of Mishler who must have heard inside revelations in his function as president of the Divine Light Mission and his function as Rawat's confidant and that gives a plausible explanation for the breach of the primogeniture

I support the version of Andries with all versions correctly attributed to their exact source and no weaseling ("Joe Doe said in an BBC interview of July 19xx that he had heard ..." is correct attribution - "critics say ..." is not). To decide if those second hand sources are reliable or not and exclude them accordingly would be original research. --Irmgard 20:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

So, you are saying that a 2nd hand account can be placed alongside a witness account and give them the same weight? That is contrary to WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 20:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

No, on the contrary - Wikipedia NPOV has to include all relevant views and what is known about their sources (he was there, he heard it from a friend of a friend of a cousin, it's a police report, it's a statement of a politician before election, etc.). The author (especially if he has his POV) should not decide if a witness account or a second hand accound have more weight (it is, e.g., normal that in any court sentence, the (second hand) sentence of the judge has more weight than the account of a eye witness)

The reader will know it is second hand, nonetheless it comes from a former persident of DLM. So let the reader decide, what are you afraid of? Sometimes i get the feeling you handle Mishler's statements as if the position of a president of DLM ist just the one of a clown Thomas h 21:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I may not oppose the inclusion of a short statement about the hearsay by Mishler. I oppose to give his second-hand, overheard, not-sources mentioned account, the same weighing in the article as the accounts of people that were there. My opinion of Mishler is not under discussion. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 21:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

We do not give them the same weight. It is up to the reader to weigh them. Andries 20:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It is a sad day, the day that we allow Wikipedia to become a platform to advocate apostate's conspiracy theories. Nevertheless, we have to mention something about this controversy, and given that there is no objection to include a short statement, I will attempt to add such. Most definitively it does not need a full paragraph, a footnote shall suffice. FYI, the whole Mishler second-hand story is already explained in the context of the father's article (see Hans Ji Maharaj#Succession), in which the story of the elder brother becoming the guru of the faction that split after the family rift is explored. --ZappaZ 22:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Take care - one persons's apostate is normally another person's convert, especially in a case like here where there exist different accounts regarding the correct spiritual succession in a family rift (and the adherents of the other party probably will see the weight of the witnesses in inverted proportions). The link to the detailed account is very good - but the para should be copyedited - there are some repetitions and also it looks right now as if the family would support Mishler ;-) --Irmgard 13:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I could live with that edit. BTW, the conjecture is not about Mishler (that again,was NOT a protagonist), but abut the family's support of Prem Rawat as the succesor. I also object to Mishler's self -haracterization of "confidant". It is unecessary, and as Andries argued, let the reader decide. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 14:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand, who conjectured what? To me it sounds like an unattributed sentence. I also object to the removal of Mishler´s assertion that he was Rawat´s confidant, because I think this is relevant information to assess his credibility. Let the reader decide after giving him the relevant background information. Andries 15:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Conjecture means speculation. There is speculation (as made by Mishler) that the family did not support the succession. That is why the text reads the way it does. The addition of the self-serving comment of Mishler that he was a confidant,, is in my view a lame attempt to editorialize and to provide a unnecessary nuance that because he may have ben his confidant, he must had access to untold stories. But that is a self-serving attempt to support an argument that is 100% based on hearsay, and not documented by any other source than Mishler. We have bent-over-backwards to allow such hearsay, unsupported, wild conspiracy theories in the articles, that to allow a self-serving statement as that one, is in my view totally unacceptable, and that is why I removed it. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 18:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

No, it is not necessarily conjecture/speculation as you yourself admitted on this talk page when you wrote "We do not konw if it is speculation (my opinion) or inside revelation (your opinion). " Writing down that he described himself as a confidant is necessary background information Andries 19:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Find need to find a better word for that discrepancy. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The "I was a confidant" is a self-serving statement and not worthy of inclusion. We have stated the fact that he was president of the DLM, that is verifiable and sufficient. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The use of "asserted that he heard" and the self-serving statement of "I was his confidant" is editorializing, for the purpose of featuring a second-hand account by a non-witness, as more that it was. Deleted. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 21:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to clarify here the purpose of an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is factual material. It is not a book about conjecture. Statements made in an encyclopedia need to based on evidence from various sources. One person who heard something is not evidence. If there were other authoritative sources confirming it then perhaps it would be acceptable. To include anything from Bob Mishler is hardly legitimate. After all, one radio interview that is purported to have taken place is not acceptable evidence for any kind of case, in any forum. It's the equivalent of water cooler gossip. As such, it has no place in an encyclopedia.

Let's get it straight. In any legitimate forum, evidence is evidence. What someone reports to have heard someone else say is not evidence. Evidence has to be able to be tested. We can't test whether Mishler heard it, nor can we test his source. Simple. No case. No evidence. It's got nothing to do with points of view. It has got something to do with triangulation of evidence. And if this is confusing, then one would have to do a course in qualitative research methods. The fact is, Mishler's testimony is pure hearsay. It's unable to be confirmed. His statements about what he heard have no legitimate place in a document that is in an encyclopedia.

If this is difficult to understand, an examination of the pages about the bombing of Dresden in World War 11 in WWII (especially that referring to the death toll) will show how evidence is more important than conjecture.

++Armeisen 06:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I have been asked to comment on this discussion, and I find I cannot support either side as this concept of a 'succession' does not make any sense to me. There clearly is no independent evidence that Shri Hans nominated any of his sons to take over as the Satguru (whatever that means) so we should look at the facts. Yes, it is true that Rawat's mother and brothers supported Rawat's position as the figurehead for eight years, but when Rawat went against his mother's wishes, the Indian courts ruled in favour of his brother, Satpal, who consequently inherited Shri Hans's property and the Indian Divine Light Mission organisation (and also, presumably, the rights to his central spiritual treatise, Hans Yog Prakash). Regarding the 'right' to teach the techniques of meditation, clearly no one can claim an exclusive right to do so, so the idea of succession makes no sense. Prem Rawat has as much right to teach the techniques as the Nigerian Guru Maharaj Ji that Elan Vital denounced earlier this year. No, the idea of succession only makes sense if one subscribes to the idea that there is only one Perfect Master alive at any one time, and when one dies, another divinely acquires the position. Just like when a King dies. As Rawat no longer claims to be the unique 'Perfect Master', this definition of succession cannot apply. So what is it that you guys were arguing about? :-) --John Brauns 23:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

you are absolutely right John. On the other a hand a premie in the german wikipedia rainer.p states that Rawat doesn't draw his legitimation on any heritage nor succession but only out of his personal living experience. I'd like to hear a word about this from Jossi, for he supported rainer.p on the german wikipedia, so i suppose rainer.p has an authorisation to purport those things. So what is it? The succession, the experience, or both and where are the reliable sources for that?Thomas h 08:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Good God, Thomas, what is it that makes you sound German, even if you go at it in fine English? An all pervading desire for "authorisation"? Something/someone to hide personal guilt, weakness and insincerity behind? I guess that is why the German word “Angst” has found its way into colloquial English. As an extreme example, holocaust-organizer Adolf Eichmann pleaded not guilty at his trial, presenting himself rather as a victim of a mistake. This in mind, and while we’re into denouncement: I hold Thomas H. mainly responsible for the elaborate description of the Knowledge-techniques in the German Elan-Vital-article, which is certainly offensive to the point of nefas to a huge number of people worldwide and of little merit in Wikipedia; it has been discussed extensively in these talk pages, I am sure.

I have only the same authorisation everybody can have – the same as you have. People should actually listen to Prem Rawat. It should become very clear very fast, that he does not claim legitimation from any line of succession, or tradition, or scriptures, but from an extremely clear present level of consciousness. It is free, it is public, just like Wikipedia. The whole issue of succession is misleading, as it is irrelevant to the phenomenon. The reader may get more understanding on the whole matter by listening to Prem Rawat for half an hour than by toiling his way through WP. It reminds me a bit of the scientific authorities of the time, who not only refused to look through Galileo's telescope, but tried to talk everybody else out of it, too. (Things may have changed only because in the course of time more people had access to telescopes than could be plausibly burnt at any autodafé. So there is hope for progress, at least as long Knowledge is available so easily).--Rainer P. 13:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia is the wrong place for propagation then. Jossi may have made a BIG mistake. Nice you are telling him that, this way. PS: Your endeavour to state that my description of the technics is pretty sufficient honours me, for it is a long time ago that i practised these technics, though they are just bastardized common indian yoga technic. You comparison with Eichmann in conjunction with that, unfortunately reveals your cultish attitude and your hidden anger for breaking a sacrilege that must in some way be punished and be it only presenting the villain's name. You live in a dream world and what you experience is probably not more than a blown up minithing, which is your religion. But that is OK, everybody can follow his religion or belief-system, but that's what it is. Thomas h 15:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

If it's a dream, it's by far the most beautiful, exciting and realistic one I ever had. And getting better! Hope yours is, too. Sorry about the Eichmann bit. And presenting your name wasn't meant to punish you, but to possibly warn others not to trust you too much.--Rainer P. 13:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

And, sorry again, I didn't say your description of the techniques was sufficient, which is certainly not the case, but elaborate. Sufficient at the most to the point of confusion. We'll have to work on that.--Rainer P. 22:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Coming across these entries for the first time recently, I find some of the inclusions and emphases do not represent the factual situation about Prem Rawat as it at present stands, and although the site, and these discussions, seem to be 'owned' by various combatants I will try to improve some of the entries. (I have since amended my edit to say his talks on peace to public bodies do not mean his teaching of the techniques of Knowledge consequently are lower on his agenda and to be more specific about the work of the Prem Rawat Foundation.) Marvin Khan 13:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

It was widely understood at the time of Mishler's dispute with Maharaji over the question of how to spread Knowledge most effectively that Maharaji felt Mishler's plan to downgrade his position would remove the most important element in the practice of Knowledge,the teacher-student relationship. While not denying Mishler's right to his own understanding, this more widely held view should be included for balance.Marvin Khan 22:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The detailed discourse on his early nomenclature is also inappropriate at such a 'top of page' level; surely this is archaic and just deserves footnote status. (M.K.)

Names

I have amended this edit

It is standard practice in Wikipedia to list all the names for a subject on top and bolded. Please take into account that he used to be much more known than he is now and that is another reasons why those names deserve to be mentioned in the beginning. Andries 16:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for this explanation, however I still demur, 1. because appearing at such prominence it diverts focus from the important imformation that needs to be conveyed about this person to relatively obscure and unimportant information, which defeats the object of the encyclopaedia, 2, it protrays him from the beginning as being in the mould of traditional Indian, or Hindu, guruship, which, whatever one's view of him, he has tried during his adult life to distance himself from, and 3, the important stages of the development of his nomenclature are the use of the title Guru or Satguru when he first came to the west, the droppping of this at a later date, and his attempt more recently to revert to a simplified form of his given name.

It would be fairer and more accurate to refer to his childhood names and titles in his history rather than the overview, and possibly to comment on the rationale for his name changes as an interesting but not central aspect of his development later in the text. It is not a major issue.Marvin Khan 13:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I have moved the names paragraph to the section right after the TOC (Early years section), as suggested by Marvin ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 14:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Reliability of 60th anniversary address of Rawat

This is a transfer of a discussion i startet at the talkpage of Shri Hans' Article for it belongs here and i have a lot of unanswerde questions:

Yes that seems to be contradictory. Yet as we can see, this is a familiy business, or was and like in any organisation, the presentation to the audience might be always different than what really happened. That should not be the problem of Wikipedia, we can publish both. The interview with sitaram [1] is very helpful to give an insight of how it worked, especially the "invitation" thing that is always purported which is a normal event tactic, and should be named as such if truthfulness is still something that counts in life.E.g. the coordinator comes and says M. is willing to tour if we invite him, blah blah blah, heard a thousand times. Why not name it, as what is is? It would be no problem. Public Relation is Public Realtion, everybody uses it,no proeblem, but why presenting PR as facts and misusing Wikipedia? ? Thomas h 08:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Public Relations? I do not understand what you are talking about. Sorry. As for Sitaram's purported email exchange, I do not see anything in it that changes anything about this article. Please note that O am not deleting the link to Mishler's hearsay story, I am simply linking to one of your websites in which the relevant part of this interview is presented. Reverted. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 11:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

You can't see any PR? The "UN 60th anniversary commitee" thing is an example. I don't see any problem if you use that in your pamphlets or on your websites. In an encyclopedia it should be clearly statet that neither "United Nation 60th anniversary committe" nor "United Nation Association" are organisations or suborganiusations that belong to the UN. The average reader will be impressed by the use of flag and symbols of the UN and might not be able to make a difference. While that might acceptable as an impact to improve ones image, the undocumented use of it here, is an abuse of Wikipedia. Thomas h 12:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

You can find information about the United Nations Association that organized the 60th Aniversary here http://www.una-sf.org/ and here http://www.una-sf.org/un60edx.htm . The use of the UN shield is not a PR excercise as you claim. And the anniversary celebration was an official event as you can read in these links. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The use of the UN shield can easily have the impact of an PR exercise, especially if you hide the fact that these orgs are no members of the UN! Thomas h 17:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

i found the links before no problem, i find you just in denial and avoiding the points that i made: In an encyclopedia it should be clearly statet that neither "United Nation 60th anniversary committe" nor "United Nation Association" are organisations or suborganiusations that belong to the UN. The average reader will be impressed by the use of flag and symbols of the UN and might not be able to make a difference. While that might acceptable as an impact to improve ones image, the undocumented use of it here, is an abuse of Wikipedia.I state that neither the Committee nor the UNA is an UN organisation, you are hiding away by ignoring the facts!Come on , get your back straight! Thomas h 17:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

the event with rawat took place at 24th of June, while the official celebration was 25th and 26th of June. at http://www.una-sf.org/un60edx.htm there is no trace of Rawat. If you search google just for "UNITED NATIONS 60th anniversary committee" [2], you will find that this committee exists only in conjunction with rawat which raises questions. a lot of questions. For example may i ask:

• How many followers of Rawat are members of the "UNITED NATIONS 60th anniversary committee"
• What do you really know about it?

Thomas h 18:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

????? ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 03:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

OK forget about the 2 questions. But please answer my paragraphs above. What's this all about. You can straighten this out yourself, i am sure. On the other hand, think, if somebody else finds out how the coherences really are, as what will you appear then? Thomas h 07:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Come on jossi, Kofi Annan was sending his congratulations, that were used by Elan Vital to present it on their webpages, to 60th anniversary 25-26, June 2005. Rawat's address was 24th of June, how could he ever be a part of it? You don't know about Public Relations?

• These organisations are non-UN orgs
• And even with them, it looks like Rawat's address wasn't even a part of the actual anniversary 25/26 of June.
• Abuse of Annan's congrats by Elan Vital
• Abuse of Wikipedia to spread this by Jossi?

Thomas h 08:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• There is no text in the articles that say that these are UN organizations.
• Kofi Annan sent a congratulations letter to the event of the UNA of Malaysia to which Prem Rawat was invited to speak.
• These are verifiable facts

Please remain on purpose. We are discussing this article and not Press Relations, or your negative assessment of Elan Vital and Prem Rawat. For that you have your chatrooms and websites. Thank you. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 09:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

---

until here transferred

• So there are still open questions, the 24th June address, while the actual anniversary was 25/26 of June? So Rawat was not part of the actual anniversary on 25/26th which is also a verifiable fact. The paragraph is misleading.
• What is "United Nations 60th anniversal committee" when the hints i find on google are alway and only in conjuncton with rawat. Whom else are they taking care for?
• The fact that the average reader might not be able to distinguish between the UN and non-UN coherence due to the heavy use of UN symbols and names in the paragraph?Thomas h 09:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes please verify the letter of Kofi Annan. In the Press release of tprf, you get the impression that the event(what event) was with Rawat alone, and Annan sent his letter especially to the "event with rawat". Since Annan sent his congrats to the real anniversary in San Franciso to all participants(but probably not to Rawat), i would like to know if there were other paritcipants that were holding adresses besides Rawat and were recipients of the same letter. Thomas h 10:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

i cannot find ISBN 0-9740627-5-8 anywhere which is given as a refence to a speech held in malaysia, what is the books title? typo? Thomas h 11:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

*How many followers of Rawat are members of the "UNITED NATIONS 60th anniversary committee"

• What do you really know about it?

Thomas h 18:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

::????? ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 03:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Bill McCarthy the administrator of the 60th anniversary committee is a premie!! I feel like throwing up. Thomas h 21:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

A temporary nausea sounds alright to me as a minor penalty. Maybe you should try a new start. ;) --Rainer P. 12:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

A penalty for what? For uncovering the mendacity your kind produces? Thomas h 13:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

All references with ISBN numbers 0-9740627 are not retrievable via any of the bigger online book stores (amazon.com etc.). So if there is no possibility to trace and purchse those books freely, the ISBN numbers are useless, and should be removed. Thomas h 19:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

You cannot remove ISBN numbers just because they are not showing (yet) in Amazon.com. These are bonafide ISBN numbers and used by publishers abd the channel to find books min print, as well as audio and DVD. Please stop with your nonsense. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 03:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed the references to UN anniversary. It seems all to be an intentionally misleading PR campaing. Compare:

• http://www.google.de/search?q=%22united+nations+60th+anniversary+committee%22+rawat
• http://www.google.de/search?q=%22united+nations+60th+anniversary+committee%22+-rawat

Pjacobi 20:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

You should not have done that. Here is why:

• There were "runner up events" and there were events on the 25 and 26th of June. The celebration events were not limited to those on June 25-26.

The UN 60th committee oversaw both the runner up events and the 25-26 events.

• The President of the UN 60th Committee , which has absolutely no ties to Prem Rawat or his organization, is Ms Nancy Petersen, who is also President of the United Nations Association of San Francisco.
• The Administrator of UN 60th Committee is Bill Mc Carthy, also President of Unity Foundation, which has produced for many yars events in support of UN activities and who has in San Francisco a biweekly cable program in support of UN activities. Ms Petersen and Mr McCarthy formally invited Prem Rawat, on behalf of the UN60th, to be part of the UN 60th celebrations.
• When Prem Rawat and The Prem Rawat Foundation expressed interest in participating, it was jointly decided that a special event would be organized by the United Nations Association of San Francisco, of which Nancy Petersen is also President, and by The Prem Rawat Foundation, at the occasion of the UN 60th on the 24th, the day before the anniversary of the UN Charter, in the Herbest Theater where the UN Charter was signed.
• It was also decided that this event would be part of the 'runner up" events and that the UN 60 logo would be used as a backdrop on the stage. The UN 60 committee offered to list the event in their printed programme of celebrations, but it was decided to not do so since the event was sold out after a few days, well in advance.
• The speakers at this June 24 event included the President of the UN 60 committee, Ms Petersen, the Administrator of this committee, Bil Mc Carthy and the President of the United Nations Association of California, Ms Astrid Stromberg. Prem Rawat was the keynote speaker for the event. The capacity event was attended by diplomats from 18 countries and by many government and civic leaders.

I have restored the text and photo. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 03:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Bill McCarty was named as the administrator of the UN 60th anniversary Committee and as such invited Rawat. Now you state he is the administrator of the the "UN 60th Committee" which is something different. He is an adherent of Rawat, and used his influence to invite him. You have given no proof of your runner up story, until then, i don't see any basis for that assertion. The UN 60 logo might have been in the hall already, as a preparation for the events next day. On the website of Unity Foundation, there is a paragraph explainig their envolvement with UN 60th, but no word about any kind of committee. Please explain ALL points. (I didn't say anything about conspiracy, you look too much james bond, i said somethin about Public Relations efforts)Thomas h 06:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• if you declare that event in behind as a runner up , which was not part of the official celebration it should be clearly stated so and you should give proof. Lack of rigor?
• you spoke of runner ups in plurale. What were the other runups, none of them are listed in the official program?
• it should be stated that Bill McCarthy is a follower of Rawat and was doing administrative task at the main event.
• what is the UN 60th anniversary Committee and what is the "UN 60th Committee"? What is the difference? What other runup was managed by the UN 60th anniversary Committee? except Rawat's?
• You speak of the capacity event. Do you mean the main program on 25/26th or just Rawat's?Lack of rigor?

I am sure you can clarify all that if you are willing to. ;-) Thomas h 07:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I have provided all the information and references needed for including a mention to that event in this article. If anythinmg, the burden is on you to provide references to the contrary. Do your own research. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

In fact you have provided nothing but allegations. You assert there is a runner up, which still is an empty claim, there is nothing but your word, what is that, original research?. When i find time i will ask UNA myself about this construction.Thomas h 17:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

No Thomas. You got it wrong yet again. The one making allegations is you, not me. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 18:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

"UN" picture

As pointed out above, on one hand we have an organisation (united nations 60th anniversary committee), which left traces only in conjunction with Prem Rawat, OTOH we have a more tangible organisation (United Nations Association of San Francisco) which left very few traces of co-operating with Prem Rawat (these few traces can be matche dto one press release).

But the essential point is: Is speaking at a small scale lobbyists meeting a notable part of a person's achievement?

And weight this against the question: Has this photograph against the UN symbol backdrop a potential for misrepresentation?

Pjacobi 15:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The 60th anniversaray logo is part of the official emblem used to celebrate the 60th anniversary. Prem Rawat was invited to speak, the logo is there for a reason": it was an official event organized by the UNA of SDan Fancisco. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

And is speaking on a fund raising meeting of the UNA of San Fancisco a notable achievement?

Anyway, I've listed the issue at article RfC. Unfortunately article content RfC process is broken in general, and specifically to Prem Rawat related articles didn't help to attract more editors in the past. Let's hope for the best.

Pjacobi 15:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the RfC. You could have done that before deleting content and reverting without (a) asking for references and (b) without explaining the reason for deletion. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

And is speaking on a fund raising meeting of the UNA of San Fancisco a notable achievement? This was not a fundraising event. It was one to celebrate the 60th Anniversary of the UN. As for notability, We could add this and many other events that Prem Rawat was invited to speak to. I don't see what is the issue. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @

Besides the 60th Anniversary event, these are other United Nations Association's related events in which Prem Rawat spoke include :

• United Nations’ International Day of Peace (Parliament House, Canberra, Sept 21st, 2005)
• United Nations Association of Malaysia in collaboration with the United Nations Development Programme, (event attended by members of Royal families, ambassadors, cabinet ministers, and members of the Asian media) (Kuala Lumpur. April 25, 2005)1

≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Getting invited in general doesn't meet usual definitions of "achievement", even getting invited to Stockholm to receive your Nobel prize isn't an "achievement" or "life work", it counts under "awards and honors" or the like. The achievement is what you get the Nobel prize for. And for awards and honors it's all important who hands them out. --Pjacobi 16:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The section is not titled "Achievements", but "LIfe work", in wich the number of events Prem Rawat has spoken to in his life are stated, as well as a list of awards and commendations received over the years. Do you have any specific sugestions? Should we have a subsection "award and honors" under life work? I would be agreeable to that. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Like with Ron Geaves it should be stated that the inviting Bill McCarthy is a follower of Rawat. Otherwise one gets the impression it was neutral thirds person idea that was the driving force. To hide the obvious connection between unity foundation/MacCarthy and Rawat in this paragraph is deception. Thomas h 17:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

In fact you have provided nothing but allegations. You assert there is a runner up, which still is an empty claim, there is nothing but your word, what is that, original research?. When i find time i will ask UNA myself about this construction.Thomas h 17:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Bill Mc Carthy was not the main person that invited Prem Rawat. The top person that invited Prem Rawat to that event is not related in any way or manner to Prem Rawat. Do your own research if you wish. But as for WP policy is concerned, this photo, text and multimedia sound file are all bonafide and factual information. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t •

the event was only attendable by invitaton AND sold out? How does that work? Did the purported diplomats frm 18 countries had to pay for that? Thomas h 19:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I have in front of me an official letter of invitation from the UNA. It is signed by the president of the UNA in San Francisco. The event was by invitation only and that is why it was not publicized (it was a sold out event). You are mnost welcome to contact the UNA in San Francisco if you want confirmation other than my word. In the future, any allegations usch as this one will need to be supported by references other than the excitable imagination fueled by profound animosity against Prem Rawat as shown in this case, and provided by those that make the allegations ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 18:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The event was by invitation only and that is why it was not publicized Fine. That implies it should be not reported in Wikipedia for non-verifiability. In addition to non-notability. --Pjacobi 18:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

That makes no difference. The event was an official event of the United Nations Association. It is notable, in as much as it pertains to the biography of Prem Rawat. I can see that you keep shifting your stance as I provide material that responds to your queries. And you have the chutzpah to accuse me of POV pushing? ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 18:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Verifiability

Events on which only "insiders" can give verification are not acceptable for Wikipedia articles. This was discussed several times in the context of autobiographies (recently again on wikiEN-l), and recently regarding the Bogdanov affair.

Notability

Guess why no media outlet picked up this press release [3]. It seems the question who is invited by the United Nations Association is generally considered to irrelevant.

Pjacobi 18:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• The event is not verifiable by "insiders" only. It is verifiable by United Nations association as well.
• You seem to rely too much on Google. Google is just a search engine, not the source of all human knowledge.
• I don't understand what you say about "media outlets" not picking up these press releases. Since when is that a measure of notability? 90% of content at wikipedia would have to be removed if that was the measurement. Notability needs to be set in context of the subject. An article such as "Prem Rawat and the United Nations Association" would be non-notable article and not allowable. But a biographical article about Prem Rawat, warrants the inclusion of events in which he spoke, including this one. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 20:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• "UN 60th anniversary committee" and UN 60th committee is still unclear, what is what? Jossi is in denial.
• A runner up as a closed shop doesn't make much sense

And yes i have written alot and have had many questions which Jossi preferes to ignore, then i have to search for myself and when somebody else takes action, we have a very vital Jossi again. Since this has become a rule that i can expect, this seems to be the only way to be deal with you. So you sit on front of the letter of invitation? What else do you have on your table? The affidavit from JHB which were published on Elan Vital with full address? Thomas h 21:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I will ignore your accusations, as these are not worthy of reply. If you have grievances, you can express them in your chatroom but not here. If you have questions about the United Nations Association, call the UN and ask them. The United Nations published a press release in June in which they state "Celebrations of the 60th anniversary of the signing of the United Nations Charter and the founding of the Organization will begin this weekend in San Francisco. The events are organized by the UN Association in San Francisco in cooperation with civil society partners. The major events for the UN60 Celebration will be held on Saturday, June 25 and Sunday, June 26, 2005, at various venues on Nob Hill. The theme of this celebration is “Enhancing the Vital Role of the United Nations”[4]. The Prem Rawat foundation is one of these "civil society partners". You can read that there are "major events" meaning that there were also other events such as the one when Prem Rawat was invited to speak. In fact, the events on the weeked were the culminaton of a month-long of celebrations. So do your research, stop believing your own little stories, and unless you have something useful to contribute, please refrain from using Wikipedia to air your grievances. Thank you. 64.81.88.140 21:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for locating this press release, Very useful as it shows the connection between the UN and the United Nations Association. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 22:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

inappropriate comments about editors factored out -Willmcw 06:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Again?

I really do not understnad the reason for re-hashing again and again the same disputes. The full hearsay story by Mishler was placed on Hans_Ji_Maharaj#Succession article, with just a small summary here based on the arguments provided. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

hmm, you may be right, I only restored the reference to the Mishler interview. Andries 23:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the change that Andries put in once again. The argument for removing the references to the Mishler story is that the story is pure heresay and would not get a guernsey in any forum requiring reasonable evidence. **Armeisen 18:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseam and I continue to disagree. Andries 18:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how often you disagree. The fact is that the material you want to add here has no validity. **Armeisen 18:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I will ask for a third opinion about this. Andries 18:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

References

Clicking on the "edit" link for the references brings up a number of references which no longer reference anything, if they every did. In addition, in "Succession to his father's mantle" is a reference simply for "Singh", referring ot the Bihari Singh statement. However, clicking on the link in the text does no take one to the reference. I have deleted the text that referenced nothing and tried to correct the reference to Singh. **Armeisen 11:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Amersein. FYI, I intend to cleanup the reference section using the new citation format recently implemented by Wikipedia developers. In this new citaton format, we simply add the references near the text usinng this tags: <ref>Author, Reference name, year, publisher, etc.</ref>. This will automatically create the appropriate numberered reference in the reference section. I will all the refs in the intro as an example, and hopefuly you can help in the cleanup. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I have transfered the first 10 refs to the new format. Will continue working on it later today. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Some more done, but a lot yet to transfer. Will continue to tomorrow. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you have completed this. **Armeisen 18:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Early Western student's passion

I have removed the part of the sentence which claims that police did not act "possibly because of the reporter's political views." There is no evidence for this and the writer is simply attributing motive without any knowledge that is publicly accessible. **Armeisen 11:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Allegations as to why the Detroit police did not pursue the matter require some attribution. There is no evidence that there ever was such an allegation, is there? Errol V 04:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Section neutrality warning

Jossi requested me to give a reason for the neutrality warning for the section Succession,though this is clear to all people who have followed the discussion. The reason is the exclusion of Mishler's version of the succession. Andries 20:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That is no reason for adding an NPOV tag. Mishler's succession hearsay story was replaced with a eye-witness account. The article is more accurate and more NPOV than was before. Removed disputed tag. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I cannot add anything to what has already been discussed extensively on this subject. Andries 21:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That is just a forum submission that somewhat corroborates Mishler's version. I do not see a contradiction with Mishler's version. Andries 21:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, can you please explain why a forum submission does not break Wikipedia:verifiability? Including this testimonie while excluding Mishler's makes to me an impression of using double standards. thanks. Andries 21:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What forum submission? That is an account submitted by a person that was there. This person is Mr. Bihari Singh that happen to be the personal driver of Hans Ji Maharaj and that was actually there. It you think that it corroborates any hearsay accounts, the better. Now we have a direct wintness account so we no longer need an hearsay account. With this new material that we did not have when we wrote that section, the article is now more factually accurate than itb was ever before. So why the NPOV tag? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is the forum submission that I think is not allowed according to Wikipedia:verifiability policy. [5] Apart from that you cannot insert one version at the expense of the other. Andries 21:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that I have always followed this policy, but including this forum submission while excluding the clearly more reputable Mishler radio Interview violates policy. Andries 21:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Andries, but you have things confused a bit:

1. The witness account by Mr. Singh is not published in a "forum", but on a website that contains verified witness accounts of named people that have been close to Prem Rawat through his life. The URL of that witness account is already provided in the references;
2. Now that we have a direct witness account, keeping a story told by a person that by his own admission was not there, is inviolation of WP policy , see WP:RS

When this section was written, we did not have a direct witness account of what happened, now we do. So the article is now much closer to the ideal of NPOV and factual accuracy that it was before. Your addition of an NPOV tag and further dispute is not grounded on policy. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation, but I continue to disagree. There is every reason to assume that Mishler had inside knowledge and that he is hence a reasonably reputable source. Andries 09:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Bihari Singh was just the bodyguard of Hans and Rawat until he split away with Mataji. I don't think that as a bodyguard he was involved in major decisions. Thomas h 12:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You are not making sense, Andries. You may want to continue to disagree, nut you need to provide an argument that can stand. This is new information that we did not have: a witness account. That is the account we should use, not one of a person that hears someting 10 years later!. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments but I continue to disagree. We can state and have stated that Mishler wasn't there so the reader can make up his or her own mind. I do not understand what sense it makes to repeat the same discussion over and over again. Andries 16:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You are not making sense, Andries. You may want to continue to disagree, but you need to provide an argument that can stand. This is new information that we did not have: a witness account: A person that was there and that saw the events unfolding. That is the account we should use, not one of a person that hears someting 10 years later. An attempt to include a hearsay account by a person that was not there, canot be explained without assuming bad faith on your part. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, "letting the reader make up his mind" is not applicable in this case. Make up his mind about what exactly? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

And please what kind of witness account is that? Has it been published by a reputable source? No, just a submission on a website of followers. Clearly Mishler's story that was on Koa radio fits the Wikipedia policy better. Andries 16:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, So what you are saying is that I can go now and remove all the accounts by the ex-premies that are published in their website? Great. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I am saying that you should not worse than use double standard when allowing sources and references for this article. Including Bihari Singh while exlcuding Mishler is worse than using double standards. Andries 16:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What double starndards? You are not making sense and not addressing the arguments I am making:

1. A series of events took place in 1969.
2. Person A hears about these events 10 years later and gives an interview about that he heard than ABCD happened
3. Person B was there. His witness accounts says something quite close to what person A said he heard, but necessaryly more accurate as he was there
4. Question is now, why do we need to refer to person A's hearsay when whe have a witness account of person B?

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Because there is every reason to believe that Mishler had inside information. Andries 18:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

But the accounts are not dissimilar, Andries. So your argument does not stand. Sorry. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

instead of believing a person with a criminal past, who'd tell anything in favour of his master whom he is especially indepted to after going with Mataji and come back later to the more renumerative rawat Thomas h 19:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that you lower your rethoric and address the points made. If the accounts by Singh and Mishler were conflicting accounts, the argument for inclusion of both accounts with be necessary for NPOV. But this is not the case here. We have two accounts quite similar in nature, one from a person that was not there at the time and that heard a description of the events that took place from an unnamed source (hey, Mishler could have heard it from Singh himself...) and the other from an individual that was there. I would argue that now that we have a direct witness account the natural thing to do is to exclude the hearsay and keep the witness account. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

you are confusing rethoric with logic Jossi. I see in Mishler a man who took responsibility and see his quotes even taken as hearsay more heavy than the statements of this person. We know by experience the manipulations of the cult side by leaving out certain details, to present a certain picture which may be more comfortable but not the whole story. Thomas h 18:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I would ask you that you refrain to address things in this manner, unless you want me to address you and your group as the "apostates that have unresolved phsychological reasons that forces them to create a narrative of conspiracy and atrocities theories in a recurrent pathology exhibited by apostates from most faiths". Note that each time you address a fellow editor using the derrogatory "cult", I will use the derrogatory "pathological apostate", and that will take us nowhere. For the purpose of civility and to keep this discussion on purpose, I would ask you to stop. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

But I see in the story of Mishler not a conspiracy theory but a description of chaos and disagreement behind the screens that is very common for many organizations. Andries 19:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, an hearsay account of extraordinary times. Pitty that Mishler was not there to witness it.But luckily, we have an account that presents these extraordinary times from a perspective of a person that was there very close to the action. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

An alleged first hand account submitted on a mesage board of followers by somebody who makes by his story a hero of himself. Very convincing. Very much according to [Wikipedia:verifiability]] policy. Andries 19:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong again!

The website is not a "followers" site, it is a site created by The Prem Rawat foundation, a bonafide non-for profit organization, for the purpose of gathering witness accounts of historical events in Prem Rawat's life. As far as I can read in that site, each account is verified before posted. As for making a "hero" of himself, I don't know what do you mean. Now, Mishler's interview is purportedly from a transcript that oh! it is ony available in the personal website of a "John Braun" that is dedicated to the disparragement of Prem Rawat and his students. Even if the interview was maybe a real interview, and even if maybe the transcript is correct, it is still hearsay by someone that was not there. Andries: there is absolutely nothing you can do about these facts:

1. Mishler was NOT there
2. Mishler does not name his sources'
3. Mishler's story is hearsay

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, of course the interview was real. Even J. Gordon Melton mentions the interview in his treatment of the DLM. It fits far better the Wikipedia policy of a reputable source. There is every reason to believe tghat Mishler had inside information and we can state that he was not there. I do not see the problem Andries 20:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Jossi how dare you to say that apostates believe in conspiracy theories when you start doubting facts like the existence of the Mishler interview? I think it is clear who believes here in conspiracy theories. Andries 20:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

And you should know that the person who made the transcript is Scott Perry who is also present in Wikipedia. Andries 20:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong again, Andries. A tape was supplied by one person, another person transcribed it, and Scott just laid it out in sections. I have contacted Koa to see if they have an official transcript, although being such a small local station I doubt they keep any archives. I also tried to locate any mentions of Mishler's words from that interview in Melton's books but could not find anything. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You need to re-read what I said to your friend Thomas above. Stop misquoting me and relax. I will not engage in that type of discussion. In fact, I am going to the beach now, to enjoy a beautiful and sunny Sunday afternoon. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Lucky you. I had to work today. :) Andries 20:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Waves were not great, but still a lot of fun.... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

as far as i know, quotes need to be sourced, when did bihari said this and where. I sincerely doubt that this converstion has ever taken place. There it says that they were discussing, if not all the boys or five or seven gurus should success shri hans. Whoever has read a satsang of shri hans knows that there can only be one. How could they ever discuss such a thing? If there was a discussion like this the whole's organisation devout purpose is in question. Biharis statements could be taken as a complement to Mishler interview, which is much more detailed and proves the business character of the whole processing. In his explenations, the doubtful sentences about multiple succession by bihari start to make sense and therefore it is a must for that interview to stay Thomas h 07:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Rival claims of succession are very common, just read some history of lineages in India, Tibet, etc. The successions in paramparas (lineages) are times of great upheaval and have been documented extensively by scholars. You can also read about the lineage claims in the Hans Ji Maharaj article, who was left penniless and continued with his teacher's work regardless. This is very common. It is clear by the material in the article that the succession was quite eventful. I am not negating that, whatsoever. I am just challenging the inclusion of a a hearsay account by someone that was not there, and who was not a protagonist. We have statements by his family made to the press, we have Prem Rawat's accout if these events, we have a witness account by a third person, and I just added another source that confirms all of these. All that, for all purposes is more than sufficient and precludes the need to include hearsay. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Melton and Mishler

I could not find any mention of an interview in Gordon Melton's writings about the DLM. Can you Andries provide me with a reference about that? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If I remember it well, it was in Melton's 1986 book Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America (New York/London: Garland.Andries 17:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, at least I don't recall Melton referring to Mishler at all... I will go to the library and check. Thanks anyway. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Please, I want to remind you of your behavior or repeatedly deleting Mishler's interview in the article Criticism of Prem Rawat. I think this deviation from the article of a scholar who is notable (and notorious) for his leniency in describing cults shows how incredible biased and unfair you are as an editor of the articles Prem Rawat and [[Criticism of Prem Rawat]. Andries 18:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Take a deep breath and relax, Andries. I am going to the library to look at that book. As far as I remember, Melton's description of the succession is very close to what the family, Prem Rawat himself and Singh are saying in the article. Once I get back from the library, I will share my findings with you and other interested editors. I would also ask you, yet again, to lower your tone and stop with acussing editors. Remember WP:AGF. Thank you for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not doubt your sincerity. I only think that you are hopelessly biased and unfair. Andries 19:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Andries, I would appreciate if you keep your assessment of me to yourself, as it is not part to this discussion and can only escalate to uncivil remarks as you well know it. Now as for your assertion about Mishler's interview being mentioned by Melton, I have checked your source and note that Melton does not refer at all to Mishler's interview, just a passing comment that I have transcribed below in full. In that book, Melton gives a detailed description to the events around the succession (that I have added as a source), and does no mention any of the events in Mishler hearsay story. If Melton had thought that these stories were worth commenting on, he would have probably done it, but obviously he did not. So, I would argue that with the three four new scholarly sources added confirming the nature of the events around the succession, this matter is now settled. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Melton, Gordon J Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America, Garland Publishing, (1986) ISBN 0-8240-9036-5 pp.144-5 "However as the group withdrew from the public eye, little controversy followed it except the accusations of Robert Mishner [sic], the former president of the Mission who left in 1997. Mishner complained that the ideals of the group had become impossible to fulfill and that money was increasingly diverted to Maharaj Ji's personal use. Mishner's charges [...] found little support and have not affected the progress of the Mission."

There is no scholarly source that contradicts or disconfirms Mishler's version. Andries 11:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no scholarly source because scholars would never consider heresay evidence, reported by someone who is no longer able to discuss it, as being worthy of either repudiation or support. So, why would a scholar even bother to discuss it, as no scholar would attribute any validity to the story. Errol Vieth 13:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. There are six scholarly sources for these events that do not mention any of Mishler's hearsay stories. That says enough. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then I gues I am wrong in this resect, but I will re-add the allegations by Mishler about financial exploitation that even Melton mentions. Andries 19:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

So, who is the one that is biased then, Andries? Just read the amount of nonsense that you war wrote about this subject and defended as if your life depended on it. In any case, these allegations are already discussed in the criticism section and in the Criticism article, so don't bother. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"It is one of the maladies of our age to profess a frenzied allegiance to truth in unimportant matters, to refuse consistently to face her where graver issues are at stake." -Janos Arany, poet (1817-1882)

That age is alive and kicking --Rainer P. 09:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I have addded Melton's short citation about Mishler's criticism about finances to the criticism section of the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Foss and Ralph Larkin

I want to remove all redlinks for the article. I cannot find any info on these people:

• Daniel Foss (only found something about being a " computer programmer and data base manager for academic and government researchers)
• Ralph Larkin (could only find one book by this person called "Beyond Revolution" )
• Paul Schnabel (could only find a bio at the Club of Amsterdam website)

Can anyone help create stub articles for these, if notable enough to warrant an article in WP, that is. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Paul Schnabel is certainly a notable person though this is not reflected in the google test. He and the organization that he presides is regularly in the news and he has a (weekly?) column in the newspaper NRC Handelsblad. Andries 11:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Could you please create stub article for Paul Schnabel? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Same about Jan van der Lans. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Early plans to deny personal divinity

I have added some information here about the claim that Rawat was setting up a religion. Indeed, the title of this section will have to be changed as well, as that title seems to have little relevance to the text. In addition, I will be adding some information that will replace the claims that Mishler is alleged to have made, as that new information is testable. Errol Vieth 08:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I apologize that I did not sign in before I made the substantial changes to this section. I only realised my mistake when I previewed this talk page. As I stated above, in the light of new evidence I have changed this section considerably, but all the changes are testable in the form of written documentation. This new evidence does not rely on the evidence of one person (Mishler) at a single radio interview. Rather, it is the evidence of four people whose statements support the changes I have made. In effect, the statements are credible because they have been triangulated; that is, supported by others. I have also changed the title of the section, as it was irrelevant to the text that existed before, and is totally out of place now. The new title of the sub-section fits in with the other titles in this section. Errol Vieth 07:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

i appreciate your honesty concerning your editing under your IP number accidently, unlike Jossi who has never had the guts to admit that he was editing under 64.81.88.140 (BTW The stealth modus of the MacOSX firewall is far from perfect) Thomas h 08:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As said countless times before, your mistaken assessment proves only one thing: your tendency to see wrong where there is none. Food for thought, Thomas. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Transition in the 1980s

I have removed the sentence "Rawat has never publicly taken personal credit or responsibility for making this change, but his critics generally claim he was the driving force behind it, demurring only as to his motivations for doing so." as their is no evidence for it. In addition, the point of the sentence is unclear. Is it supposed to be positive or negative? What is it supposed to explain, or show. Further, to say "Rawat has never publicly taken person credit.." is a bit like saying "Mr Jones has never publicly said that he was beating his wife" (or "...not beating his wife", depending on one's perspective). If this sentence can be rewritten to make a clearer point, and if evidence for its claims is presented, then it could stay. Errol Vieth 08:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

the statement in this article is that there was a transition, right ?So, there is no evidence that he did inaugurate the change, nor that he didn't. So did it take place by itself? Or is it just that it happened somehow and it's not so important to clarify that?? In this case, if it is not so important, i don't understand why there must be such a blown up article for a more or less unimportant person. Thomas h 14:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I know that it ticks you that we have one of the best referenced articles in Wikipedia about a notable living person, giving your very public animosity against Mr. Rawat and his students, but to understand the reason why do we have such a compehensive article about him in Wikipedia, you may need to read Wikipedia is not paper to understand. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

yeah funny. Very well referenced, but a notable person? In your eyes maybe and in your effort to make him such. But who the hell started the changes? See, you and your type clearly try to avoid uncomfortable issues for the "living master". The whole article is in this flavour. Rawat is for you more important than Wikipedia is. This is a fact. And this attitude will always play the main part of whatever you do here. Thomas h 10:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

We are discussing notablity within the context of Wikipedia. Please read WP:V and WP:LIVING for information about notability of living persons in the scope of this project. As for my work in Wikipedia, facts speak stronger than words. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Number of practitioners

A press release states that 2004 was the first year where the number of new students has exceeded 50,00. : That number seems to need correction.--Rainer P. 09:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have not seen any newer press releases with an update of these numbers. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

What does 50,00 mean? Is it 5,000 or 50,000? It appears formally ambigous to me, or mayme I'm not familiar enough with the way Numbers are displayed in the U.S.--Rainer P. 17:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It should be 50,000 (fifth thousand). ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Discarding the trappings...

I removed the line "according to Glenn Whittaker....". By putting reference in at the end of the sentence, it becomes clear who made the statement. It is redundant to write it again. Errol V 03:26, 7 February 2006(UTC)

I do not agree, because there are competing version by different persons. Andries 06:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are, but this is simply addressed by stating something to the effect that "a different perspective is that ......" with the reference at the end. In addition, you have changed the sentence stating that it was Mishler's perception that something had occurred. Your correction assumes that Maharaji was divine, and no-one says that, not even you. I have reverted. Errol V 11:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with your revert, because that is what Mishler said. The sentence does nowhere assume that Rawat was divine. Only that Mishler said that he had a divine status. Andries 11:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Whittaker's view on the matter is just one of many and he was not even a protaganist, so this should be stated that this is his view. Andries 11:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Your summarization of what Mishler said, is incorrect. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Asserted vs claimed:

• Asserted: state categorically
• Claimed: an assertion that something is true or factual

So before you split hairs about words, learn their meaning first. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the style guide, the word "claim(s)" implies doubt. No problem with implying doubt as long as it used consistently for all parties that make statements about the transistion. Andries 19:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

See the style guideWikipedia:Words_to_avoid#So-called.2C_claim.28s.29.2C_purported.28ly.29.2C_supposed.28ly.29.2C_alleged.28ly.29 Andries 19:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's remove the value judgements and use "Mishler said". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Also added attributions as per WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I question a couple of things in the opening paragraph of this article. First, the article states that:

"Since 2001, Prem Rawat has become known for his discourses on peace as much as for the teaching of the techniques of Knowledge."

Who says that he's "become known" like this and where is the evidence?

Second, the article then says that Rawat is:

"Invited to address various insititutions on the subject of peace..."

My understanding is that every single "invitation" Rawat has ever received in this regard has been solicited by his followers. Isn't it then rather misleading to not qualify this sentence to reflect as much? I would suggest that the two sentences combined, standing as they do, give a false impression of Rawat as someone renown by the world at large as an expert of sorts when that's hardly the case. Only his followers consider him as a leader in any field whatsoever and they alone instigate his various speaking engagements. Jim Heller February 12, 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.223.203 (talk • contribs)

I have attributed these statements and provided sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Your attributions are to press releases put out by Rawat's own organization. Is that Wiki-kosher? I'd be surprised. In any event, all these say is that Rawat was invited to speak at various places. You haven't addressed my concern that these were not unsolicited invitations as the word is normally used. This is important as the whole thrust of the paragraph seems to be to acclaim the great respect and popularity Rawat has achieved as a leading spokesman for peace on the world stage. It'd be one thing to mention that Rawat has spoken at these institutions but the specific mention of his being invited to do so when, in fact, these are all dates sought and arranged by his followers gives a decidedly false impression. As for my other point, these attributions add nothing. Where is your support for the claim that Rawat is now known for his discourses on peace as much as for his teaching Knowledge? --24.69.14.159 23:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Read the Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV as it pertains to attribution. Prem Rawat was invited to speak by the organizations stated in the references, and the message of peace is stated in the website of the foundation that carries his name. As per Wikipedia guidelines we are not asserting this as a fact, but as an attribution. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I realize that Rawat was literally invited to speak by these organizations. However, do you deny that these invitations were first solicited by his organization and that to omit that fact gives a distinctly false impression of his stature and popularity as a speaker with these groups? Also, for the third time now, where is your support for the claim that Rawat is now known for his discourses on peace as much as for his teaching Knowledge? If there is none, I will edit accordingly. --24.69.14.159 01:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I have added the necessary attributions as per WP guidelines. The sentence now reads that "According to the Foundation that carries his name, Prem Rawat is known for his discourses of peace", etc. Regarding your claims of solicitation, I have not heard of such a thing. If you have a reputable source that supports your claims of solicitation, you are welcome to add these. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit. I'm sure you can appreciate what a different impression that makes. Now as to the second issue, perhaps it would be more accurate to simply state that Rawat has spoken at these various institutions and avoid the question of whether or not he was invited to do so. The point being that just because someone speaks some place, it doesn't mean they were invited to. They might have instigated the engagement themselves, as I believe is the case with Rawat (through his followers), in which case saying he was invited gives a false impression.--24.69.14.159 02:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what false impression is given. Prem Rawat was invited (and continues to be invited) to speak at events that are not "instigated by followers". Unless you have information about how Thammasat University and the United Nations Association of Malaysia can be "instigated" to do anything, I don't see the need to change the wording. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, there is a world of difference between a regular invitation and one that was solicited. The former bespeaks some interest on the inviting organization's part. At the very least, it suggests that the organization is aware of the speaker. In the case of solicited invitations, however, it well might be that these various organizations had never even heard of Rawat until his followers approached them. This is an important distinction as, clearly, the only reason for mentioning the various places Rawat has spoken is to underscore the point made earlier, namely that Rawat's developing a reputation as a speaker on the subject of peace. The paragraph's better now as it only cites Rawat's organization for that proposition but mentioning these various invitations is still misleading. They suggest a popularity that might not exist. As the only attributions you have are to comments by Rawat's organization, perhaps the answer is once again to clarify the point and say that that's the source for saying that Rawat's been invited these various places. Either that or neutralize by omitting any mention of invitations whatsoever and simply say he's spoken at these various places. --24.69.14.159 02:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

As you (24.69.14.159) seem to have a very strong opinion/knowledge that something untoward is associated with these invitations, could you please state what the evidence is. Obviously, your "understanding" of the situation did not come from the ethers. So, if you have something by way of evidence for your claims, then it is necessary for you to present it. Otherwise, the status quo remains. Errol V 03:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon has already agreed that Prem Rawat is invited to speak by these organizations, and attempts to assert the opinion that these invitations were the result of "follower's instigation" and thus "misleading" as it pertains to "Prem Rawat's reputation as a speaker in the subject of peace". But the fact is that Prem Rawat is and has been invited to speak an these institutions and that is what we are reporting. I do not see the need to further edit that sentence. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The Rawat group uses sleight of hand in their public relations and here's some proof. On Rawat's WikiQuote page there's a picture of him talking at the U.N. The caption says that he's "addressing diplomats". The truth is that his organization merely rented a hall at the U.N. for him to speak to followers and their guests. Ask Jossi, who is a close follower, if that's not the case. If he won't admit as much I'll seek out some evidence. As for the invitations themselves, do you actually think that some university in Thailand even knows about, let alone has an interest in, Rawat? If you do, that's the problem with the article. It's misleading. I would suggest that Jossi could easily confirm how these invitations arise. He just has to ask his colleagues. Jossi, would you please do that?--24.69.14.159 04:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact that I am a student of Maharaji, is publicly disclosed in my user page. In the spirit of disclosing facts for the benefit of other editors, it is my understanding is that anon .159 is one of the people in the small group called "ex-premies", a group dedicated to the criticism of Prem Rawat and his students. I would argue that given anon's vitriolic criticism of Prem Rawat, it is not surprising that he reads too much into that sentence and considers it "misleading" when actually it is an harmless fact: Prem Rawat gets invited to speak at public forums such as the Universal Forum of Cultures, Barcelona 2004 . As for the photo in Wikiquote is from the Wiki commons. Read the caption and understand what this photo is and where is was taken [6]. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Any fair reader can immediatley see that the simple claim that Rawat has been invited to speak at these various exalted institutions -- the U.N. no less! -- is in the article to bolster the preceding claim that he is gaining recognition as a speaker about peace. It's just another way of saying that he's gaining prestige and popularity. In that context, therefore, it's important to know how and why those invitations came about. Why can't you acknowledge that? --24.69.14.159 22:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

But he is gaining recognition as a speaker on the subject of peace ... and that is why he is being invited to speak at these organizations's events, such as those organized by the United Nations Associations of Malaysia and others. So, I do not understand what the issue is. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

That's rather circular reasoning, Jossi. You can't use the invitations to prove that he's gaining recognition and thereby avoid the very question of how the invitations arise in the first place. --24.69.14.159 23:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Interview

Back to the Mishler interview. I've rewritten the sentence to make the meaning a little clearer. Neverthless, I am not convinced of the reality of the Mishler interview. I'm happy to be proven wrong. When the "interview" first appeared on the EPO website back in the mid-late 90s, it was never claimed that it was a real interview. It began, if my memory is accurate, with a statement to the effec that this is what Mishler would have said. However, many people claim that it did happen. It would be interesting to find out, but I doubt that radio station records would go back that far. Hence the problem with unpublished material. Makes for interesting discussions though. Errol V 04:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. You may want to follow the discussion about radio interviews that I started at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Radio_interview. Editors are arguing that only if an interview was available for verification, it is within policy to include it. Editors are unclear as to how possible it is to gain access to tapes or transcripts of radio and television transmissions for verification purposes from the broadcasters, and that this would be a flaw in the verifiability chain that would have to be examined. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm the person who originally received the cassette tape of the Mishler interview from another former follower whose brother taped it at the time it was broadcast. I knew Mishler's voice and recognized it beyond any doubt whatsoever. Moreoever, the existence of this interview was common knowledge among Rawat followers (which I then was) when it happened. Furthermore, the interview was always claimed to be authentic when it was first posted on EPO. Who said otherwise? --24.69.14.159 04:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You may need to read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources to understand the reason for the questioning about the verifiability (as it is described in Wikipedia content policies) of an interview and its transcription. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Jossi, I read it and regarding that the Mishler interview on the website also has an audio file so you can compare the transcript to the audio file for verifiability. When compared to the other sources used on this websites such as postings on websites of followers it is a superior source. Let's use the same standards for inclusion and exclusion of material to maintain NPOV. Andries 06:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Andries, but this source is not any superior. Read Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Radio_interview ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is not quite accurate, Andries. There are two interviews purportedly given by Mishler. One is the alleged transcript of a radio interview. The other is a short interview (transcript and audio files) but neither of these is attributed. The only speakers are a caller and, purportedly, Mishler's voice. By the way, Andries, you should read the transcript of the second interview, where the Mishler voice talks about who called Rawat god. And it wasn't Rawat. Errol V 08:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Errol, I'll ask you again, where did you get the idea that EPO ever represented the Mishler interview as anything but real? --24.69.14.159 22:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Another question: Where is the evidence to support the claim that "[t]hrough The Prem Rawat Foundation, Prem Rawat has spearheaded various humanitarian initiatives"? Is it just the fact that his name's on the foundation? It seems that you minimize his connection to the organization when you're trying to imbue an attribution to it with some arm's-length credibility. Thus you don't say that "According to his organization, Prem Rawat is known for his discourses on peace". However, when you want to credit him with the good works of the organization, suddenly just his name is enough to suggest that he's "spearheading" their efforts. To be consistent, shouldn't you say that "The Prem Rawat Foundation has spearheaded various humanitarian initiatives" and leave him out of it?--24.69.14.159 22:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Splitting hairs yet again? Prem Rawat spearheads these initiatives through the foundation to which he has lent his name and stature. Princeton's WordNet definition: Spearhead: someone who leads or initiates an activity. The statement is accurate. You may want to visit the website of The Prem Rawat Foundation, where these humanitarian initiatives are described http://tprf.org/humanitarian_initiatives/. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You say "splitting hairs", I say deflating grandiose spin. Look, we know that the Prem Rawat name is on the foundation. My point is that there's no evidence that he's any more than a figurehead. Where is there any evidence that he has done a single thing personally to further the public works the foundation does? There's none to be found on the foundation's website, that's for sure. There's no evidence that he initiates projects, coordinates, negotiates or does anything, really. There's no evidence that he even fund raises for the foundation, let alone puts in any of his own hard-earned money. He doesn't even make speeches about the group and its goals or accomplishments. Compare, then, with a group like the Bill and Melissa Gates Foundation. They're both intricately involved in the group on every major executive level. Now they can fairly be said to be spear-heading its efforts. Unless you have some evidence that Rawat actually does something with the group, I'd say we're looking at a classic figurehead. --24.69.14.159 23:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, it seems like the word "figurehead" as defined in the same dictionary fits even better: (by extension) someone in a nominal position of leadership who has no actual power; a front or front man Retrieved from "http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/figurehead". The question is whether or not Rawat provides real or nominal leadership. Again, as a current, relatively close follower (I understand), you are in a position to actually answer these questions. For instance, you could find us some concrete information on how the foundation's structured and, specifically, exactly what involvement Rawat has. Are you willing to do this? --24.69.14.159 23:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, last year Mr. Rawat donated works of art that raised $700,000 in an auction performed by the foundation (See:http://www.tprf.org/Prem_Rawat_press_21.htm). In any case, I have no intention in engaging in discussions and speculation about Mr. Rawat's involvement in his Foundation, if he is or not a figurehead, if this is "deflating grandiose spin" or not, etc., with a person whose only interest in the subject is to denigrate the subject of this article. You may want to write a message to the Foundation asking for that information, if so you wish (you can do so here: https://secure.tprf.org/helpdesk/newticket.php.) FYI, discussion pages in Wikipedia are for one purpose only: to discuss the article. If you want to continue these speculative discussions you may try other, more suitable places such as USENET, chatrooms, and the like. Please read Wikipedia:Talk page, to understand the intended usage of this discussion page. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The word figurehead (metaphor) is factually correct, because there is no way of knowing for outsiders if and when Rawat has or had real power. According to Kranenborg, Rawat's mother was in charge during some time, but Rawat was still the figurehead. Andries 23:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

And the point is? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Lead section edited, next paragraph proposed for removal

The Lead section is the first and in many cases the only thing a reader sees, so it needs to be coherent, grammatical, clear, NPOV, and encyclopedic in tone. As an outsider with no brief for either followers or critics, I've attempted to supply a bit more of these qualities, fixing some sentence structure mixups (as an example, "he is able to assist in this endeavor" is presumably supposed to be part of PR's message, not stated as fact), and little things like starting with a complete sentence. The big problem with the paragraph was that the disconnected final sentence, "For some people, however, Maharaji is a controversial figure", was far from balancing the fannish, reverential tone of the rest, and vague (oh, no, not "some people"!) where the rest of the paragraph was specific. Please take a look at my version — "is a spiritual teacher" can be improved, I'm sure — I'm uncertain what term to use. I've removed the sentence "Prem Rawat offers to help people prepare to learn the techniques and provide ongoing clarity and guidance to those individuals", because the longer I looked at it, the less information it seemed to convey. Offers to provide ongoing [?] clarity and guidance to those [which?] individuals — this is surely self-evident — all spirituals leaders/teachers do that — and redundant with the previous sentence; in what other sense than this could PR be teaching the four "techniques of Knowledge"? I don't mean to offend anybody, and I hope people (Jossi?) will explain if there was a point there that I'm missing. I have also cooled the intimate, affectionate tone created by the alternating use of "Prem Rawat", "Maharaji", and "Prem"(especially that) to refer to the subject.
Secondly, could somebody explain what the point of the next bit is, with the childhood names and the low-information-content quotation from Clarity? I'm non-plussed. It seems an extraordinary choice for starting the article proper, immediately after the Lead. Only the quote is sourced, too. (If the footnote after the quote is meant to cover the whole thing, this needs to be made a bit clearer.) But above all, what good is it? I'm reluctant to remove it, but I will unless somebody defends it. This article needs to be of higher encyclopedic quality altogether, and less of a hagiography, and it seems to me that one of the ways of getting there is to remove bits with trivial information content. But, again, perhaps there is a significance I don't see. If so, it probably needs emphasizing more.
Btw, I've lifted what was note 67 bodily into the Lead to become note 7, because I needed it and didn't know what else to do, but the referrence of its "Ibid" is unclear — it doesn't seem to refer to note 66, as it's supposed to. (This is an illustration of why "Ibid", which is obsolete and deprecated by all the major style guides anyway, had better not be used in the first place.) Perhaps someone knows what the right reference is to put into this note? Notes 4,5,6 ought to be combined into one note, incidentally, for a more professional look; I'll come back and fix that later, unless somebody else wants to. Bishonen | talk 00:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC).

Thank you for your contributions. You are giving too much significance to a very small group of critics. I would argue that this is a matter of undue weight . Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living people. I will refactor your additions to something more appropriate. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

In regard to the presentation of the numerous names, I will be happy to remove that section. The reason for the inclusion is that an editor was adamant that all these names be described in detail. Please note that the current version of the article is the result of thousands of edits over a period more than two years by many editors (it was one of the most edited articles in WP in 2004!), so please acknowledge the effort made so far, and make proposals rather than being too bold with your edits. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I realize the article must have been argued over forever; I can see the archives on this page. It's nevertheless IMO slanted towards hagiography at present. But if even proposing the removal of a pointless section is being too bold, I doubt I'll have the time and energy for getting seriously involved in editing this article. Bishonen | talk 00:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC).

As you can see, your proposal to remove that section was acted upon quickly. If the article reads as a hagiography, I would be the first one to want to know that and engage in making this article better. Could you please point out what other sections need improvements? Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I have made several edits that hopefully addresses your concerns. If you see any other areas that need improvement, please let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bishonen,

Thanks for your comments which come like a blast of fresh air. You're absolutely right, the article does read like a hagiography, albeit with a cursory nod to the outside world which views Rawat decidedly different than Jossi and other followers suggest. But what's to be done? You will likely take off, Jossi and his dedicated crew, who are serving their "Master", let's not forget, won't, and the article will stay misleading and, to be honest, a blight on Wikipedia. If you are the least bit interested in a little background on Rawat, take a look at www.ex-premie.org or this site for a fast look at Rawat in his own words: http://gallery.forum8.org/ --24.69.14.159 02:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

And when you are at it, Bishonen, see what one ex-member of the group that anon is a prominent member of, had to say in a affidavit filed with the Supreme Court of Queensland about the activities of his group in which he says "the goals [of the ex-premie group] are ofnet obsessive, malicious, and destructuve in nature". You can read the rest if you have the stomach at [[7]. Nevertheless, and as stated before, my interest is in making this article the best it can be. You help is much appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely amazing! Jossi, why don't you tell the whole story? How John MacGregor had received and disseminated some innocuous but admittedly private financial documents about the cult's Australian compound and how your cult then visciously pounced on him, dragging him through the courts until he was drained, exhausted and broken. Only then, frightened that the cult would go after his parents' nest egg which he'd borrowed against to defend himself in court, he capitulated and wrote the affidavit you're talking about. You guys are shameless! Every bit as corrupt as Scientology. --24.69.14.159 03:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what this pages are not for, and what your dragging me into. Well, I refuse to engage. What about that? If you want to have these discussions please have them on USENET or in your cozy little chatroom. Ah! and before I forget, please note that all what you said in the past about Wikipedia is dutifuly stored in the history pages, so please do not come here to pretentd to care about this project, when you don't. There many of us that care that care about this project and that work really hard to make it better, but you are not one of them if one is to judge by your very public comments, so spare us the preaching. OK? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

What a [rm personal attack] you are! Read your post above mine where you gratuitously attack ex-premies just because you don't have any real defence against the obvious point Bishonen's making. The article DOES read like a hagiography. But as soon as he said that you tried to make the issue the character of Rawat's former followers. Well, whatever. At least I have the satisfaction of knowing that you are a follower of Rawat. I couldn't imagine a worse way to waste one's life. --24.69.14.159 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You are violating the Wikipedia policy of No personal attacks, that reads: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. A notice has been placed on the Adminstrators noticeboard about your verbal abuse, as this is not the first time you have used such language against editors. Continue to do so and you may be banned from editing Wikipedia articles. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see the point of refering to what newspapers said about Prem Rawat in the 1970's (in the opening paragraph) when Prem Rawat's activities cover more than 40 years. It might have merit if Rawat had done nothing since but he has been consistantly active since then and he's activities well documented on numerous websites set up for that purpose. I also object to the derogatory comments of 24.69.14.159. They have no place in Wiki World. momento 06:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the lead section. The lead section is not the place to introduce specifics, but to give an overall picture. For people who want to read on, elaboration occurs in later paragraphs. The wording of this last sentence has been acceptable for some time, as it now is. The detail of the "negative responses" lies in other sections of this document. In addition Andries, if you are going to make changes, please ensure that the spelling and punctuation is standard American or standard English (or standard Australian, if you like.) I've spent a bit of time correcting your work.

In general, I find this article objective and wery well documented. In fact, all arguments should be outside wikipedia. We have to talk from documents, papers, juries, and declarations of people who have been near Prem Rawat, these should be the sources. On the other hand, evrybody has their own interests, but the text must reflects the objectivity it has now. morenoescudero —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.235.176.2 (talk • contribs)

Undue weight to critics in the lead section of the article is not acceptable. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Before re-hashing the conversation about undue weight of critics viewpoint, please note that this has been discussed profusely already. See archives: Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive 13#Recommendation and Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive 13#Viewpoints. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Jossi, I have read the disccusion about the weight that should be given to critics and I was a major contributor to the discussion and unfortunately we have not come a millimeter closer. The fact is that criticism of Rawat has comes from many sources, some of which are not even mentioned in this or the criticsm article e.g. traditional Hindus, like Agehananda Bharati. And Rawat has been controversial when he was still well known. Now he has fallen into obscurity and measuring the degree of controversy around him is difficult because few people are interested in him and also because he avoids the mainstream press after bad experiences. Rawat has always attracted significant controversy, relative to his fame and minimizing this breaks NPOV policy. Andries 19:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Prem Rawat has attracted criticisim that it is infinitesimal in comparisonm to his achievements and stature. For NPOV we have a section that describes the criticism. What we are discussing here is the intro, in which a minority position is given undue weight in your edit. Reverted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard of Agehananda Bharati. If you have any valuable information that can be used in the article, you know you can add it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Citing media criticism of Prem Rawat from the 70's in the opening paragraph is completely innappropriate. It is like citing media criticism of Sir Mick Jagger from the '70's in the opening paragraph of his article. Mick Jagger is notable for his 40+ years of music, not the fact that 40 years ago many media found his appearance and behaviour to be worthy of criticism. Prem Rawat warrants an artricle in Wikipedia because he is a teacher and speaker not because he was once a chubby 13 year old and an easy target. Wikipedia is supposed to be current and balanced, giving undue emphasis to sensational beat ups from the '70's in innappropriate for any entrant. I am removing it. momento 20:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The difference with Mick Jagger is obvious. Mick Jagger remained famous, unlike Rawat. Rawat was controversial as long as he was famous. Andries 20:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, Andries. A better comparison would be Krishnamurti whose Wiki article begins as follows:

Jiddu Krishnamurti(జిడ్డు కృష్ణమూర్తి in Telugu) (May 12, 1895 Madanapalle, India–February 17, 1986 Ojai, California), often written as J. Krishnamurti, was discovered as a teenager by C.W. Leadbeater in India on the private beach at the Theosophical headquarters at Adyar in Chennai. He was subsequently raised by Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater within the world-wide organization of the Theosophical Society, who believed him to be a vehicle for a prophesied World Teacher (see Second Coming; Maitreya Buddha). As a young man, he disavowed this destiny and also dissolved the Order established to support it, and eventually spent the rest of his life travelling the world as an independent speaker and educator on the workings of the human mind. Aged 90, he addressed the United Nations on the subject of peace and awareness, and was awarded the U.N. 1984 Peace Medal. He gave his last talk a month before his death, in January 1986, in India where he had been born.

His supporters, working through charitable trusts, founded several independent schools across the world—in India, England and the United States—and transcribed many of his thousands of talks, publishing them as educational philosophical books. --24.69.14.159 20:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point re Krishnamurti. The opening paragraph doesn't put any emphasis on the negative media reports that would have accompanied his arrival in the west. Krishnamurti is an entrant into Wikipedia because of what he did not what some people said about him.

As for the comment from Andries, that also is true. But Prem Rawat was only made famous by the media in the '70's because he was a chubby, teenager with an unusual message and was easy to ridicule. Now that he is in his forties and most media more mature. he is of little interest.momento 21:12, 14 February 2006.

The opening paragraph isn't the place to include sensational beat ups from the '70's or criticism of people who have not understood one of Prem Rawat's key points - that inner peace is independent of culture, relgion, education and lifestyle. People who criticize Prem Rawat because he is rich, married, drinks alcohol or eats meat are missing the point and should not be considered. I am removing it once again.Momento 21:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion of the irrelevance of Prem Rawat's life style is a personal one and diverges from the tradition from which he originated. Others will disagee with you. Andries 21:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is a major part of Prem Rawat's teaching. From the very beginning he has said his teachings and the techniques of Knowledge are independent of culture and lifestyle. As for tradition, I think we can all agree that Prem Rawat is not and has never been a traditional guru.Momento 21:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Momento read the following from the article "He advised his new followers, who were to a large degree wedded to the drug and hippie culture of the time, that successful practice of Knowledge was incompatible with drug use". Rawat told his followers not to drink alcohol but heavily drank himself secretly because the teacher of inner peace was full of anxiety. I think that few people would agree with you. Andries 22:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Regurgitating allegations made by his critics again and again, does not make these allegations any more believable. Please remain on topic that is the discussion of this article. Polemics and the repetition of allegations is totally innapropriate and against policy. Read Wikipedia:Libel ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I was replying to Momento why criticism should be included and this was fully on topic and I have the right to repeat sourced criticism here on this talk page about the subject of the article. Andries 22:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I have incorporated some of the points made by various people. I think that now it is a balanced lead section. --DS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.32.218.9 (talk • contribs)

Thank you DS, I am not sure about the whole thing about the "lack of apparent intellectual content" of the teachings. Thruth is that Prem Rawat does not address that particular attribute, but a deeper aspect which he refers to as "the heart". Intellect is there for a reason, sure, but not for feeling peace within, the main thrust of Maharaji's teachings. Maybe we need to reflect that in the lead section, for balance. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I might have caused some offence by deleting the sentence in the lead paragraph about criticisms of Prem Rawat. I am a student of his but do not subscribe to any form of hagiography. However, these criticisms of him for lifestyle do not hold water. Proof needs to be supplied. Likewise with the lack of intellectual content. That I have found him the most intellectually stimulating and challenging teacher I have encountered is irrelevant in the context of Wikipedia, but so is the unsubstantiated opinion of someone who apparently feels the opposite. The criticism about possible claims to divinity during his early teaching in the west is more to the point and could be referred to, but a general introductory overview is not the right place. To say at this point that he has his critics, whose views are presented in a separate section, as is the case with more detailed information on his teaching, seems much more appropriate. Marvin Khan 20:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Interview discussion

(moved here from above for clarity) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC) One can't leave this page for a minute, as it gets filled with much invective in a short time. But I would like to get back to the Mishler interview. You ask me above, Jim, if I don't believe the interview to be real. What do I know? I understand there was an interview on radio with Jim Heller. I have heard this from those people whom I trust. However, I have no conviction that the so-called transcript that is on the EPO site has anything to do with the interview. I've stated one reason above. But there are a few others. For one thing, you have included on your site audio files of a phone interview that someone had with a person purported to be Mishler. It seems strange that you have not included audio files of the purported radio interview. Until I know otherwise, through the presentation of evidence that the interview was recorded and the transcript you have on your site is the genuine article, I have no option but to be sceptical of your claims that the transcript on the EPO site is genuine. I love being proved wrong, because when I am it means that greater accuracy and certainty has been achieved. So please feel free to prove me wrong. Errol V 12:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I'm Jim Heller and there's no interview of mine on EPO. Did you get that misinformation from the same "people [you] trust"? Who are they, by the way, and why won't you name them? The fact is, the Mishler interview is completely authentic and many followers of that time heard it and many more were aware of it. The fact that the Lord's right-hand man would break ranks and speak out against him like that was earth-shaking in our world. Besides, as I've said, I received the tape personally from Rick Wallace who's brother taped it off the radio. I had no difficulty at all recognizing Bob Mishler's distinctive voice and speech patterns. If you're calling me a liar I think it's only fair that you name your source. Don't you? --24.69.14.159 19:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do whith calling anyone a liar. What is being challenged is our ability to verify the fact that the interview took place and that the transcript published and reformatted in the critics' website is true to the original. I will contact the KOA AM station in Denver and inquiry about the purported radio program and if it is possible to have an official transcript of that program. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

My question was to Errol, not you. But seeing as you've commented, do you actually doubt the authenticity of the Mishler interview?

--24.69.14.159 20:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That the interview took place is undisputed. The only dispute seems to be about the transcript which seems to be excessively skeptical. Andries 20:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I know you are Jim Heller, Jim, and I know that the interview is not of you (at least the one Mishler purportedly gave to the radio station). As I said above, I believe the interview happened. I don't know, and I have reason to doubt, that the "transcript" that is on EPO is a word-for-word, or even a slightly edited version. As you have the tape of the interview, it would be a simple matter to make it available, then no-one would even think about calling you a liar (if in fact it supported your case). As an officer of the court (which I think lawyers are in the US, just as they are in other western countries), then you would be aware of the need to support those who seek the truth. So solve the problem, let's hear the tape. Easy. Errol V 07:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Errol, unless you explain why you say you have "reason to doubt" the veracity of the transcript, you're just being provocative and insulting. Come on, that's a viscious accusation and you should back it up properly not with vague innuendo. So I will ask you once again, who told you that the transcript is fraudulent? If you won't say, that says it all. Your reference to the judicial process is so misplaced it's not funny. If you're calling me or, perhaps more importantly EPO, fraudulent, you should explain why and not simply say that a little birdy told you so. As for the tape itself, God, I have no idea where it is. What happened is this. Either Rick Wallace sent me a copy which I kept and David Stirling another which he transcribed or he sent me one which I forwarded to David. It was a long time ago and I just don't remember. What is your relationship with premies, by the way? --24.69.14.159 21:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

So Jim, what we have is a transcript of an alleged interview. As you don't have it any more (although you did keep the other interview), it will only ever have that status of unsupported and unverifiable material. Whilst not worthless, it is close to it in the general scheme of things, as your legal training would tell you. It is certainly not evidence of anything. Thus, from this point on, any references to the interview must contain "alleged". I stated above why I question its authenticity. No-one suggested anything to me; I don't understand why you keep suggesting that. You seem to think that there are a group of people sitting around feeding me with information. Hardly. I'm a very independent person. I've been around for a long while, and I have been reading the EPO site since it first appeared. Errol V 21:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Another compromise Lead

I see that after a change by Momento, Rawat no longer (neutrally) "purported" to promote the value-laden concept of inner peace, but was taken at his own word (something that an encyclopedic article just should not do) that he does promote it. This with an edit summary of "Removed 'purports' which is not NPOV"; I simply cannot fathom that one. "Purports" is ugly, but the whole point of it is that it is NPOV; it states that "this is what X says"; it doesn't take sides — any sides — to state that "this is how things are because X, Y or Z said so". It attributes, and remains neutral. I've put "claims" instead now, to get rid of the ugliness, but "claims" is really less exact; it has a hint of disbelief in it, instead of strict neutrality. (Feel free to change it.) I also see that Errol Vieth promptly reverted Andries specifics about criticism of Rawat, which we are apparently now edit warring over. Errol, since you thereby brought all mention of criticism back full circle to what it was before my edit, namely the miserable sentence "To some people though, Rawat is a controversial figure", I think it needs a more active defence than just that it has been "accepted for some time as it is now". That's not really high praise, considering what a lot of POV has apparently been accepted in this whole article for a long time. The trouble with the sentence is that it's completely unspecific while the positive statements in the Lead are highly specific — right now, that Rawat started his public career at the age of specifically 8 is in the Lead..! It doesn't seem to me a reasonable response to this complaint to say that "The lead section is not the place to introduce specifics, but to give an overall picture." Anyway, I have tried for a compromise version, please check it out, if it hasn't already been reverted.
Oh, incidentally, the first sentence has again become a sentence fragment, and frankly an affront to syntax. It got that way because my claim "...is a spiritual techer" was removed by Jossi. OK, but the article needs to define PR in some way at this point, IMO — needs to say that he "is" something — for clarity, for the reader. (The purpose of the article isn't to provide a battlefield for Rawat followers versus Rawat critics, but to present balanced information in a way that's easy for a reader to take in.) If "spiritual teacher" isn't right, can somebody suggest another term which sums up RW's role in an appropriate and neutral way? Bishonen | talk 21:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC).

It had indeed been reverted, by Momento, apparently on the basis that criticism from people who don't understand PR's "key points" is missing the point and should not be considered. Momento, if I may say so, you are missing the point of what an encyclopedia is and does. Bishonen | talk 21:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC).

I agree that the sources and points of criticsm should be specific too. With regards to "spiritual teacher" which seems quite good to me, the following is basic, factual, uncontroversial and was and is true, "Rawat is a teacher of meditation techniques and he asserts that keeping in contact with him is essential for success in this". Andries 21:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If Prem Rawat says that what he teaches is independent of religion, culture, education and lifestyle then it it is irrelevent what religion, culture, education and lifestyle the teacher or student adheres to. People have criticised Prem Rawat for being (in chronological order) too young, miming his talks, uneducated, Indian, having a screechy voice, short, fat, rich, unemployed, eating meat, drinking alcohol, smoking dope, married, married to a westerner, knowing a pedophile, having an affair, a bad poet, a simplistic artist, holding events on public holidays etc etc. These are the criticisms you think should be included in the opening paragraph? Pavarotti, the opera singer, is big, fat, rich, Italian, sweats excessively, drinks alcohol, eats meat, had an affair, marrried his secretary, lost his talent etc. Is it relevant to his life as an opera singer?Momento 22:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Momento,

The major criticism against Rawat is that, for decades, he openly declared himself to be the Lord. He called himself the Saviour of Mankind and promised to bring peace to the world. To this day he had done nothing to disabuse his earlier followers of thinking that way. In short, the major criticism against him is that he is a deceitful cult leader. All these other criticisms are the second tier.--24.69.14.159 22:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I would kindly requeet that you stop wielding the "cult" peyorative as a weapon and that you lower your rethoric, unless your intention is provocation, that is. As for your assertions above, Prem Rawat never called himself "Saviour of Mankind", and you know it. Yes, he made claims of bringing peace to the world, and indeed has brough peace to hundreds of thousands of individuals around the world. And as far as I know, he still relentelssly pursues that dream. I do not see him abating any soon in that effort. Thank God for that. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you call this then:

The greatest problem all around the world today, whether in America, Japan,China, Russia, India or anywhere else in the world, is that people are not in peace. People want peace. Today, if two people fight, the government is supposed to settle them down. But when governments fight, who is going to settle them down? The only one who can settle the governments down is the Perfect Master, the incarnation of God Himself, who comes to Earth to save mankind. Tokyo, Japan, October 3, 1972 (And it is Divine, July 1973)::::--24.69.14.159 00:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

And where exactly he says that he is that "Perfect Master"? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"People say, people say... actually the most common thing they say about me is that I am a Perfect Master. And what they mean by Perfect Master is the one who can reveal perfectness. Like one who teaches you math, you call him a math master, one who teaches you science, you call him a science master, one who can teach you perfectness, you call him a Perfect Master. And I can teach them what is perfectness, so they call me Perfect Master." (And It Is Divine ~ Dec. 1973, Volume 2. Issue 2.)

--24.69.14.159 01:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Face it, Jossi, the proof is overwhelming. Rawat called himself "Perfect Master" all the time and, in the first quote I posted just above, he explained that that meant that he was the saviour of mankind (not to mention "incarnation of God Himself"). --24.69.14.159 01:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

What about you facing it. Can you read basic English? "people call me", "they call me". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

How about this:

"Our body is finite. Something within this body is infinite. And if we join those two things, if we make that one connection ... Because that we are trying to reach, what we are trying get to, is that most spectacular experience. And that experience is always there because it's infinite! And we can always achieve it. We can always be there, by going to Guru Maharaj Ji, by going to the Perfect Master. Because Perfect Master not only teaches us perfectness - and that is why he is Perfect Master- but he has the key. And not only does he have the key, but that answer, that solution, that experience, lies within him. Because he is that experience."(Malibu, May 8, 1978,Printed in 'Divine Times',Volume 7, Number 4, June/July,1978,"Guru Puja Special"}

Jossi, unless you're going to now say that Rawat didn't call himself "Guru Maharaj Ji" you must admit that the case is overwhelming.--24.69.14.159 01:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This is my last response. Do you really know how to read? I am starting to doubt that. Can you read the unequivocal he and him. Do you know the difference between 'me and I and he or him? As you seem to be so knowledgeable on Maharaji's satsang from the early days, you would remember by whom the 12 year old Maharaji swears that he will bring peace to the world? I will tell you: I swear by Guru Maharaj Ji, I swear by the one who has given me birth". Can you read that? Good, Now leave me alone. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Now, now, Jossi. I thought Wikipedia was not the place for, what do you call it? Ah yes, "invective"! Yes, Jossi, I can read. I'm a lawyer as a matter of fact. I read things all the time. I also know that what you're doing is simply denying the obvious truth. No matter how many quotes I posted, no matter how well-documented, you will always find some spurious excuse for not admitting what you don't want to admit, in this case that Rawat claimed to be the saviour of mankind. Bishonen (or anyone else who has an interest in Wikipedia but not necessarily Rawat, pro or con), would you please comment substantively on this point. What do you think of Jossi's argument about this issue, namely whether or not Rawat ever claimed to be the saviour of mankind? And, if you agree that it's not, what does that say for the prospects of this article ever being done properly with Jossi "guarding" it? --24.69.14.159 02:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I know you are a lawyer, but it seems that your wits abandon you when it comes to this subject. How else would I explain your inability to read what it is written? For your information, I am "protecting" this article in the same manner I am protecting countless others. As an editor and administrator of Wikipedia I contribute not only to this article but to many other articles, as well a contributing to define policy, fight vandalism of Wikipedia, and overall make this project successful. My effort is to have articles that comply with Wikipedia content policies, articles that I can feel proud of, that are well written, and that are well referenced. If you consider this "protecting", so be it. I shall be proud. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, do you agree with me that Bishonen seems to be a fair and impartial person at this point? Do you join me in asking for her opinion on this issue? Do you actually think that she will have any hesitation in concluding that Rawat most certainly called himself Perfect Master (and hence, Saviour of Mankind and the incarnation of God himself) in the quotes I've posted? BTW, if he wasn't talking about himself, who WAS he talking about? --24.69.14.159 02:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen is a fellow editor and I have already thanked her personally for her involvement and solicited further feedback from her on how to improve this article. As for your question, I would refer you to the quote I posted above: "'I swear by Guru Maharaj Ji, I swear by the one who has given me birth". Now don't tell me that you cannot understand who the young Maharaji is talking about? Or maybe you nedd to read this quote: "When I was born, God existed. But I never new Him. I just never knew Him until Guru Maharaj Ji came into my life, till Guru Maharaj Ji came in my way, and showed me and revealed me that secret. And the day he did that, there it was, I knew God" )And It Is Divine, (January 1973) Volume 1, issue 3 (Referring to the day his father and teacher gave him the techniques of Knowledge). There you have your answer, and please don't tell me you don't understand a simple statement such as that one. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I really can't believe you. First, in the quote you've just presented, of course Rawat was talking about his father and not himself. But then, according to legend, he became Guru Maharaj Ji after his father died. That's why we called him that, remember? Second, Rawat did for years, and probably still does, refer to Guru Maharaj Ji sometimes as a disembodied kind of thing. But that's only sometimes. When he's referring to "incarnation of God himself", there's nothing disembodied about it. And let's be clear, even when referring to the disembodied aspect of Guru Maharaj Ji, he still maintained that he was "one with" it. Third, Rawat did have, and probably still does, a habit of referring to himself in a guru form of "royal" sense. He often spoke of himself in the third person that way. Every premie knows that and I can show you tons of quotes that prove the point. Fourth, at times, Rawat has been inconsistent about all this stuff. In other words, although I can find you quotes where he claimed to be God, I can also find you quotes where he said he wasn't God, just a humble servant. But that was all part of the "wink / wink" that makes premies feel like they're part of some great secret, isn't it? You know exactly what I'm talking about. Fifth and finally, Rawat still allows people to worship him like God and does nothing to disabuse them of this notion. Again, quotes infinitum. But beyond all that, you didn't answer my question which was, do you join me in inviting Bishonen to read through this exchange and offer her opinion on whether or not Rawat, in the quotes above, was claiming to be all those things mentioned? --24.69.14.159 03:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

And I cannot believe you cannot understand what is written in plain English. The facts speak for themselves, and your interpretations speak from themselves as well: You must be seeing everything from a very distorted perspective, maybe due to your self-declared visceral hatred of the man in question and of people like me that chose to be his students (please don't make me dig out from the archives your pernicious and abusive comments you have made in these very pages in previous discussions to prove this point). We are not discussing what people thought or think of Prem Rawat, we are discussing your assertions of what Prem Rawat said about himself. As for your question about Bishonen, she will participate if she wants to, as any other editor on this encyclopedia can. This is a Wiki, after all. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, how does one go about getting a referee here? I think that this recent dispute shows that you are unfit to edit this article. Does Wikipedia ever make such findings? Say, for instance, an article existed for an infamous person, perhaps a mobster, and their son or wife refused to allow the article to form fairly. Is there any point where WikipediaGods, whoever they might be, would block that son or wife from editting? Let's get a referee in here and let them see just who's refusing to interpret plain English fairly. Shall we? How? --24.69.14.159 04:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want to understand how Wikipedia works, you may start here: Wikipedia:Five pillars. Happy reading, and good night. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not relevant for his life as an opera singer. But Rawat came out of a tradition for which life style was important. He made claims that are normally associated with a clean life style. He asserted and continues to assert that he in some mysterious way is important in the succes of the meditation of his students without giving continued detailed meditation instruction. He became rich and a private investorr though he only little money and was disinherited. He lived from donations, while some of his followers stayed poor. That is why his life style is important. Andries 22:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This is an argument that I have seen you repeat many at times, Andries. But I tink that you are misled (too much listening to your ex-premie friends, maybe?). His father and teacher was a householder and not a renunciate. There is nothing misterious about having a teacher. I studied and practiced Ninjitsu for 12 years and I appreciated having a Sensei and was glad for the opportunity to study under his tutelage. I am a sutden of Maharaji for 20 years and I sincerely appreciate his inspiration and guidance. What' is the problem with that? I am also not poor, thank you very much. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not believe you are poor, but others are, partially because they devoted too much time and money to Rawat. The difference is that you most get detailed instruction, unlike the instruction from Rawat. And if his life style did not matter for the tradition from which he came then why did his mother criticize him for his life style. Clearly Rawat's claims are internally contradictory and do not fit in any tradition. May be you and Rawat are right and I am wrong, but partially because he refused to fit in any tradition, he attracted a lot of criticism and following NPOV means that this should be reflected in the article. Andries 23:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I lived in an Ashram for several years, and contributed (and still do!) money and effort. I get the same instruction anybody else gets. Go to the same events to hear Maharaji speak, practice the same Knowledge, etc. There is no hierarchy, no chakras to light-up, no stages to conquer. Just a simple way to go within and feel what is already there. Yes, he attracted criticism for not being your "conventional" guru with the flowing white/safron robs and a long beard. As for his mother, she was a devout Hindu and her reluctancy to accept the non-conformist aspect of Maharaji's early life in the West and his way of teaching, was something pretty hard on her if one is to judge by her reaction upon his marriage to a Westerner. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that for accuracy, when he arrived to the West he attracted a lot of interest (13-year old boy guru, etc), and some criticism from the usual suspects. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen: I think that anon's edit to the lead was a good one. Your edit has some aspects that are incorrect. For example, Prem Rawat did not start speaking about peace in 2001, but since he was 8 years old. I will work on your edit and correct these aspects. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I refactored some of anon's edit. Hope it works for you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well... shrug. I had some reasons for doing a copyedit, you know. You've restored the anon's weird sentence structure, the spelling "prommotion", and the non-encyclopedic (inappropriately intimate) random variation of name form ("Rawat", "Prem Rawat"). Also added the infelicitous "In the U.S. in the 1970s, where he has resided since 1972". What you say about the 2001 thing, that's fine, I'm sure you know, but you surprise me.I didn't make it up. The version that was there before I ever touched the article said "According to press releases of the foundation that carries his name, since 2001 Prem Rawat has become known for his discourses on peace". Bishonen | talk 01:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC).

When many people get involved in editing, this happens, as you know. I will try fix these issues. Thanks for your feedback. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we have some agreement that " he has 'claimed' to promote a personal, individual experience of inner peace through his talks and what he refers to as four "techniques of Knowledge", is inaccurate. He doesn't just "claim" it, he's very publicly "promoting a personal, individual experience of inner peace" all over the world. There is no doubt about it, it isn't a claim.Momento 06:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

And perhaps someone can explain what an "appropriate" level of luxury is? It would appear some editors are falling into the old trap that peace somehow equals poverty. That in order to be legitimate Prem Rawat cannot be rich? Every person who owns a house, a computer and a car is living an "inappropriately luxurious" life compared to a quarter of the world's population. Luxury, like language, locality and literacy, has nothing to do with what Prem Rawat is teaching and cannot be seen to be "inappropriate" to his teachings.Momento 06:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

A lead is an introduction to the article. It is an introduction to Prem Rawat. It is not an introduction to criticism of Prem Rawat, which is on a different page. (It follows that the long "criticism" section at the end of the Rawat article is simply repeating what already exists. I intend to remove it totally, with a link to the criticism page.) Therefore, I have removed the sentence about media attention in the 1970s which is irrelevant in this introduction, and about criticism, which, once again, has a whole page devoted to it. Errol V 07:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

incorrect, the lead should be a short summary of the whole article. Andries 11:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

And I have removed "claims" because it is blindingly obvious that Prem Rawat has gone a lot further than just "claiming" he is "promoting" etc, he can be seen doing it on televisions around the globe.Momento 09:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The article's lead should be a short sumamry of the whole article, and that was what it was before the attempts to give undue weight to critics. Every public person attracts criticism, and there is no difference here. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Replies to Momento, Errol, and Jossi

(I'm signing each paragraph in case anybody interlines comments between them.)

Momento, about "promotes" versus "purports to promote", you're missing my point. Nobody does indeed doubt that Prem Rawat appears on television saying essentially "do this and you will have personal, individual experience of inner peace" or "I promote personal, individual experience of inner peace". (I don't mean he talks like that, I'm merely trying to unwrap the logic of it.) For the article to refer to these TV appearances etc. as "promoting personal, individual experience of inner peace" would be for the article to agree with Prem Rawat that personal, individual experience of inner peace will ensue if we do as he says. But that's only his and his followers' opinion. Wiki articles aren't supposed to agree or disagree with anybody's opinion, they're supposed to report that the opinion has been expressed and by whom. That's the encyclopedic quality. That's the reason it should be "claims to promote" or "purports to promote", not "promotes". Also, that is the reason your request to "explain what an "appropriate" level of luxury is" is kind of pointless. It's not our business to explain things, to forcibly turn the reader's head in a particular direction to see things from a particular angle, to comment. Our business is to report what's out there, in this case that PR has been criticized for inappropriate luxury. Not to defend, attack, or obfuscate this criticism, just report it. Bishonen | talk 21:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC).

Had the sentence said "Prem Rawat promotes ABC" I would agree with you. But the sentence clearly attributes the statement to the Prem Rawat Foundation, and not as a fact: "According to the foundation that carries his name, [...], Prem Rawat has promoted...". As such, it is compliant with NPOV and does not need a "claim to" or "purport to" prefix. Had it said "Prem Rawat promotes ABC" I would agree with you.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I realize the Lead is in flux, and the sentence looks different now than it did a few hours ago when Momento quoted it. But I was interested in getting the principle through to all editors, especially to Momento who took issue above so insistently and repeatedly with my NPOV change from "Since his early beginnings as a teacher at the age of eight, he has promoted a personal, individual experience of inner peace through his talks and what he refers to as four "techniques of Knowledge" to "Since his childhood beginnings as a teacher, he has claimed to promote a personal, individual experience of inner peace through his talks and what he refers to as four "techniques of Knowledge" here. I responded to the issue the way he put it because I thought and think the principle is important. I agree it's a bit useless to be talking about text that has already changed. Bishonen | talk 23:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC).

In flux it is.... What do you think of the current lead (just in case... here is the rev I am referring to :) [8])

Well, if you really want to know. It still/again starts with a syntactic fragment instead of a complete sentence (my various fixes of this irritating detail have been reverted at least three times). "A source of inspiration for his students" is POV. "Delivering his teachings" is too "warm" and reverent, needs cooling. The whole thing is too short — dividing it into mini- paragraphs hasn't made it any longer — and too thin, there's too much missing. I realize the article probably isn't destined for WP:FAC in any case, but I don't see why we shouldn't at least try to live up to WP:LEAD: "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article"... "Begins with a definition or clear description of the subject at hand. This is made as absolutely clear to the nonspecialist as the subject matter itself will allow"..."We aren't just dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word—we are eased into it." Bishonen | talk 00:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

Dear Bishonen, "purports to promote", means that there is some doubt that he does promote. If the issue is that there is no proof that what he does promote results in a "personal, individual experience of inner peace" then a more accurate description would be that he "promotes what he claims is a way for an individual to experience inner peace through what he calls Knowledge". If you are happy with that, please change it.

If our business is to report what's out there, should we report that Pavarotti had hip and knee surgery in 1998 in the opening paragraph.

It's true and it's out there but is it important enough or is it of minor importance in his life as an opera singer? Should we also report in the opening paragraph that some members the Catholic church were outraged that Pavarotti had a mistress and that some critics say Pavarotti is a vain man who darkens his hair and eyebrows with charcoal, has tried to hold back the years with face work, and has done something to his teeth. This is trivial and irrelevant to Pavarotti's claim to fame as one of the world's greatest opera singers. I'm not going to go to Pavarotti's Wiki article and put this rubbish in and I would object if anyone did. It is more appropriate to the tabloid newspapers and gossip mags that thrive on this sort of stuff than an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. The same applies to including someone's criticism that Prem Rawat (or Pavarotti) lives in "inapproprate luxury". "Inappropriate" and "luxury" are not NPOV and extremely trivial and do not belong in the opening paragraph. Critics of Prem Rawat have a whole section to criticise him.Momento 22:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

To Errol Vieth: to remove the entire criticism section and leave only a 14-word sentence behind (note that all other spun-off sections from Prem Rawat have been replaced by proper-sized summaries, as per Wikipedia:Summary style!), and to still find room for the word "strident" in there (neutral? NPOV? encyclopedic?), seems to me a strikingly crass POV edit — a sad example. It could have been made by an ex-premie masquerading as a Rawat follower in order to make the pro-Rawat side look bad. No, I don't suppose that's what you are, but it sure did make the pro-Rawat side look bad; congratulations to Jossi for reverting it. Bishonen | talk 21:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for the comments Bishonen. Whilst the Rawat article can be read as a standalone document, it is just one in a series of articles that focus on Rawat. This page is about Prem Rawat, another page is focused on criticism of Prem Rawat. So, to have one page which is entirely devoted to criticism of Rawat (which must, by its very nature, be non NPOV, as it is criticism), and then to say that the Rawat page has to be balanced by anti-Rawat material (when that anti-Rawat material has a page to itself) is something of a one-eyed view. To take the two pages together means that one has a balanced point of view. To have one page focused on criticism, and another that must also have significant elements of criticism, is hardly balanced.

And then, of course, how does one work out balance? Does it work on a numbers game? That is, how many critics of Rawat are there compared to the number of advocates? Because, if we go down that route, the number of lines devoted to the critics would be about 3 compared to 30,000. So while there is doubtedless criticism of Rawat (but you will notice that most of it is focused on stuff that is purported to have occurred in the 70s and 80s--hardly topical) it is a "strident" opposition by as many people as you have digits. Much of the criticism is hearsay and based on shonky sources.

I agree with an earlier comment of yours that the page is a bit like a hagiography, noting that such an appellation has strong positive connotations. If these pages focus on early stuff, it is because the critics like to focus on that. Hence much of this page is a response to events and statements that happened in the 1970s.

I would like to see the editors of Wiki make strong noises about documenting sources, and verifiable sources, rather than the constant harping on NPOV (which is never achievable. A point of view is a point of view. It is never "neutral".) Balance is important, but define it. Even in the relatively short lifespan of Wikipedia, you will have realised that such notions are not simple in the arena of language. Errol V 21:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Errol, I would kindly suggest that you take some time and read WP:NPOV, as it is a concept of neurality that you may not be familiar with. This principle is non-negotiable, and one the three content policies of Wikipedia. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. To make your contributions to be meaningful and with a good chance of remaining in the article, please become familiar with these policies. It will be worth it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Errol, the fraction dedicated to criticism is not determined by the nr. of adherents versus the nr. of critics but by informed opinions e.g. in scholarly articles and reputable media. The fact is that Rawat was controversial when he was well known. Andries 17:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting interpretation of policy, and unique to Andries. --≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you please give a serious reply to this? What other method do you suggest? Ways to determine the fraction of criticism are not discussed in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons.Andries 17:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"This page is about Prem Rawat, another page is focused on criticism of Prem Rawat. So, to have one page which is entirely devoted to criticism of Rawat (which must, by its very nature, be non NPOV, as it is criticism), and then to say that the Rawat page has to be balanced by anti-Rawat material (when that anti-Rawat material has a page to itself) is something of a one-eyed view." Errol, no, no, you don't get it, there shouldn't be a separate article of "criticism". This one that we have here is called "Prem Rawat". It's not called "Positive aspects of Prem Rawat" or "Prem Rawat praise". It's a biography about a person and his importance, and it should treat the whole of that subject in a comprehensive and balanced manner — cover it. Ideally, there shouldn't be a special section of criticism in it either, but critical views should be integrated throughout. That is probably a pipedream, considering how embattled Prem Rawat is, but as for having the criticism tucked away in a special article — surely you see that that's just wrong? Bishonen | talk 23:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC).

Bishonen, I do get it. There is a page called criticism, whether you think there should be one or not. This page (the Prem Rawat page) is not a biography in my understanding. It is about Prem Rawat and his work. Actually, Prem Rawat is not at all embattled. He is cruising along just fine doing what he has been doing for 40 years. It's a small group of people who create a lot of noise, but it has absolutely no effect on what Rawat does, and he certainly is not perturbed by those who want to stop him. So, if we have a page of criticism, then this Rawat page should be one that simply discusses what Rawat does. If you don't think the criticism page should exist, then delete it. I'm happy for that, and then we could focus on what the Rawat page should be about. Errol V 02:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Errol, what we have here is called a content fork. As an article becomes too big, we do what is call an "Article spinout, using Summary style articles" in which sections contain summaries of the spinned-out articles. For example, the criticism section is a summary of Criticism of Prem Rawat, in which the grievances of critics are aired as well as rebuttals, etc. See Wikipedia:Content forking ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I'm rather disheartened about trying to edit this article, in general; for instance, I note that the Lead has now almost finished the process of returning quietly to its original — IMO slanted — state from before I first edited it. Even language copyediting like writing in complete sentences won't stick, and no specifics of criticism are permitted, not even the brief, factual critical summary added by Andries, which I thought balanced the rest of the Lead very appropriately; even though it's surely a notable fact that Prem Rawat has been seriously criticized. Btw, Jossi, you set a value specifically on keeping the Lead short, but it would actually right now be considered too short for this article. Please see Wikipedia:Lead section (well worth reading altogether.) Bishonen | talk 21:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC).

Specifics of the criticism is an issue of undue weight as per WP:NPOV. You may want to read previous discussions on this subject here: Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive 13#Recommendation and here Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive 13#Viewpoints. I am open to a version of the lead that summarizes this article better. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I am familiar with WP:LEAD. After re-reading it I have split the intro in to easy to read paragraphs. IMO, the lead now has all what is needed as per guidelines/policy. Note that many biographies whose subject has attracted criticism, does not include a summary of the criticism in the lead, for obvious reasons of undue-weight. I would suggest you take sometime and read WP:LIVING a new guideline developed over the last couple of months. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Bishonen, what about me?! :) I'd really love your opinion of the argument I had with Jossi yesterday regarding whether or not Rawat called himself saviour of mankind, Perfect Master, the incarnation of God himself, etc. as per the quotes I provided. What does it take to have someone banned from editting an article for dishonesty? Would John Gotti's kids be allowed to stand watchdog over an article about their father? Thanks, --24.69.14.159 21:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I know, I'll get there, I just don't have much wikitime to spare. Why are you editing logged out? Bishonen | talk 21:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC).

Bishonen: Note that all the polemic about this subject is already explored at lenght in the article. See Prem_Rawat#Early_Western_students. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Jim/24.69, this is not a discussion forum. Please give concrete suggestions on ways to improve the article. Andries 21:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

And he also needs to apologize for his verbal abuse and personal attack. This is a pattern of behaviour we all have observed from this man in the past, and I will not engage him or anyone else that behaves abusively against editors. Behaviour reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Anon_24.69.14.159_personal_attacks ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen, I look forward to your opinion when you get a chance. You asked why I "logged out". I'm sorry, I don't know what that means. BTW, if you would ever like to email me to discuss this, I'd be happy to hear from you. --24.69.14.159 23:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Andries, I wouldn't dream of editting this article as long as Jossi is free to edit it. --24.69.14.159 23:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Jossi, Anyone reading this page can see that you started the ad hominem attacks with your reference to MadGregor's affidavit and the nasty quotes therein. Beyond that, you've ridiculed my reading and thinking skills just because I've stated the obvious. My responses to you have been a mere glimpse of my real feelings. If what I've said has been abusive, what you've said about me, other ex-premies and, perhaps most importantly, the truth, is far worse. --24.69.14.159 23:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you had a name account as "Jim Heller" as well, I must have misunderstood. I did reply to you on your talkpage, an hour before you posted the above, haven't you seen it? Bishonen | talk 00:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

P.S. I've noted your e-mail address and removed it, it's better not to leave it on an open page. One of the advantages of creating an account, btw, is that you'd get access to the "E-mail this user" feature, to both contact and be contaced by other users without having to reveal your address publicly. Bishonen | talk 00:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

Link

I think that you have made a mistake, Bishonen. John Brauns (talk · contribs) is a critical ex-follower and the owner of all the ex-followees websites. He removed that link because it is not a critical website, but most probably a spoof :) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. You mean to say the critics-of-Rawat movement is big and prominent enough to generate spoof sites, eh? I can't say you've been giving me that impression. :-P Bishonen | talk 00:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

Websites today, are a dime a dozen, as you know :D ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You can ask them about the size of their group. What is being reported is that there are a but small group. I would not call them a "movement" per se. Although they dislike being called a "group" and prefer to be called a "number of internationally dispersed individuals". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[moving disruptive comment and personal attack to archive Talk:Prem Rawat/Heller comment ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate it, Bishonen, if you refactor the above vituperation, as per WP:NPA. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd rather not, please ask someeone else if you feel strongly about it. WP:NPA is policy but WP:RPA is not, and I'm not much of a fan of it. --Bishonen | talk 03:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

OK. I have reverted the deletion of that comment by anon, and refactored just the abusive language against me. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikibreak

I has been a pretty intense week, to put it mildly, as I am not used to be the recipient of so much hostility. But I guess this is the price one has to pay if one cares about basic human freedoms, which I do. I am taking a short and well deserved wikibreak and will resume my duties as an administrator and editing this article in a couple of days. If there is anything that needs urgent attention, you can drop me a line via email. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)