Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 45

Does Wikipedia discriminate?

1) All religions and spiritual movements started being considered sects or cults by previous religions, including Christians, etc. No one started with millions, that came long after masters or leaders died. Why are there not similar "cult" or "sect" remarks in all other biographies of religious and spiritual leaders and movements?

2) All masters, true or false, lived without working, preaching was their job. There is no proof that Jesus worked as a carpenter until he was 30, that is just how we have tried to fill the inexplicable silence of the gospels on most of his life. All masters have lived from the "payments" of their followers, including Jesus, etc. Prem Rawat may be the first or one of the few to be financially independent. Why are there not similar remarks on "payments" in all other biographies of religious and spiritual leaders?

3) All masters, prophets, etc. have been critisized in their time, Jesus too. Two examples of masters who came from India and preached in the US, Vivekananda and Yogananda. They were also critized, specially by Christian church authorities. There are no negative comments in their biographies, nor in those of most Indian masters, but many in Prem Rawat's article. --Pedrero (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion forum. No discrimination is going on surrounding this topic. There are discussion forums available for you to join if you want to have discussions with other premies. See Chatanand. There are also many blogs you can read that are written by adherents of Prem Rawat which give you the chance to comment if you want. Just do a Google Blog search and plug in "Maharaji." You'll find plenty of premies to contact and converse with. There's no discrimination happening here because as Maharaji always says, as well as his organizations' FAQ state, practicing Knowledge and following him is compatible with, but not a spiritual practice, philosophy, life-style or religion. Therefore, your complaints about discrimination are unfounded. Best wishes. Sylviecyn (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a legitimate topic to improve this article. Thanks.Momento (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The job of Wikipedia editors is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. In this case, sources have devoted considerable attention to the subject's lifestyle. The biography of Jesus spends time talking about his relationship to his apostles. Yet this biography doesn't even mention the mahatmas that were called the apostles of Guru Maharaj Ji. We have an entire article devoted to the shoes that the Pope wears, yet we don't even mention Prem Rawat's footwear. So it goes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

A disingenuous argument, it seems to me. You are comparing contentious and inflammatory topics with neutral ones. Rumiton (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if instead of looking at Jesus Christ, we go look at Rawat's contemporaries, like Jim Jones, Satya Sai Baba, Rev. Moon, etc, I think you'll find similar topics covered. The fact that Pedrero would compare Rawat to Christ speaks volumes. Folks keep saying that the movement has changed, but the 1970s DLM repeatedly compared to Guru Maharaj Ji to Christ. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You mentioned 3 cases (etc.) out of many dozens or hundreds. What about the rest? To find more negative comments than in Prem Rawat's biography, you have to go to someone like Jim Jones, very different from Prem. Clear discrimination. To me it seems someone in Wikipedia is obsessed with defaming Prem Rawat. Again, how many spiritual biographies have more negative comments than Prem's?--Pedrero (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

What negative comments are you referring to? WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view: positive, negative, or neutral. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you consider the tart-on-the-face incident a positive or a negative comment? And the "he has been critized for his opulent lifestyle"? I do not see the same for the Pope, the Orthodox Patriarc in Moscow, etc., who also have opulent lives being Jesus' successors or representatives. I suppose the highest hierarchies of other churches do not live in slums, in Spain they used to live and I suppose many still live in an "Episcopal Palace". Where are the equivalent comments? Do you think that Prem's biography is normal for a person as respected as to speak in the House of Representatives in the US, and in the best universities and other respected institutions, with a respected audience of intellectuals including ministers? Find me a few biographies with more negative comments than Prem's biography. But do not include people like Osho Baghwan, rejected by the Beatles for good reasons, and imprisoned by the FBI also for good reasons, or Jim Jones, or the man in Waco, (David Koresh?) etc., no pyscopaths, please, they are the only ones that seem to have a worse biography than Prem. I will count the negative comments in Prem's biography and others if I have time, which is difficult.--Pedrero (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresenting

Will,I have warned you several times about misrepresenting me. "Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editor" is unacceptable. I did not assert "that the Fifth Estate , and anyone influenced by their writing, may be an unsuitable source because of his unproven suspicion that the editors there many have known about the pie throwing incident beforehand". I said "The Fifth Estate and every magazine/newspaper that repeats its material should be considered suspect since it was its reporter that attacked Rawat". This is not an isolated incident, he does it constantly. Two days ago we had this exchange -

So are you saying that a 1973 book is acceptable but a 1973 magazine is too old? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Will. Be careful.Momento (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it was Jayen who discussed old sources. So I gather you don't agree with his point. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The above incident could be seen as a simple accident but nevertheless I warned Will about misrepresenting me. But as the block quote below proves beyond a shadow of doubt that Will is engaged in a deliberate pattern of harassment against. Is any admin reading this prepared to take a stand? Momento (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Here Will asks me me if Collier is the most reliable source we can use for this article. Three times I say "no" and two days later he tells another editor I said "Yes".

Momento, Are you asserting that Collier is the most reliable source we can use for this article, more reliable than newspapers or scholarly accounts? If so there's lots of material from that book that I'd like to add. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No.Momento (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No what? Is Collier a reliable source for the comments of Rennie Davis, and other personal observations? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You asked me a question. The answer is "No". Yes, Collier is a reliable source, providing normal Wiki policies are followed.Momento (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

So if you agree that Collier is not more reliable than newspapers why did you assert that previously? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You asked me if Collier is " the most reliable source we can use for this article". And the answer is still "No". As for whether Collier is more reliable than "newspapers", that obviously depends on the particular material in question and the newspaper concerned.12 MayMomento

And two days later he wrote to another editor -

Momento asserts that Collier is the most reliable source available. If a highly reliable source says that someone was drunk then it is not a BLP violation to discuss that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Let's stick to the topic at hand. Dredging up old, unrelated disputes isn't going to get us any closer to a resolution of this matter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
• And, for the record, I apologize for mischaracterising Momento's assertion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the topic at hand and will continue to be so every time you do it.Momento (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Article talk pages aren't for discussing editors, so this is off-topic. The topic of this page is improving the article titled "Prem Rawat", and the topic of this thread is the Halley incident. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The topic is you misrepresenting my comment on the Fifth Estate as a source on Halley.Momento (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to say I find Will heavy. He always has something to say to everything everybody else says. It reminds me of "filbustering" in US politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedrero (talk • contribs) 08:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Millennium

A separate section on Millennium makes sense when you remove the interview paragraph. Better balance and reduces to over emphasis on money.Momento (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's disingenuous to move something, and then to delete it for better flow. The material you deleted is not included in any other article, except for the first two sentences. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll put it in the Millennium article where it belongs. Any mention of Millennium in this article should be a balanced summary and certainly not highlight one question from the press conference. And please integrate this "Rawat said "I have something far more precious to give them than money and material things - I give peace".[86] "What do you expect him to do," a premie said, "travel from LA. to Houston on a donkey?"[71] "Maharaj Ji's luxuries are gifts from a Western culture whose fruits are watches and Cadillacs," a spokesman explained.[87] In their view, the messiah had come as a king this time, rather than as a beggar.[71][88] Other premies asserted that he did not want the gifts, but that people gave them out of their love for him.[89] They saw Rawat's lifestyle as an example of a lila, or divine play, which held a mirror to the "money-crazed and contraption-collecting society" of the West.[90]" better.Momento (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we just go back to the version before you moved all this stuff around without any discussion or consensus? As for that other material, it appears related to the lifestyle issues, not to the Millennium festival. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's much better the way it is, a short summary of Millennium without the cherry picked press conference question. It should never have been there in the first place.Momento (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That sentence concerned his explanation of the luxury automobiles. Though the question was asked at the festival press conference, it was otherwise unassociated with it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Managerial mentality?

To me, the sentence which begins, "He described the managerial mentality in the Mission..." makes little sense in the light of what follows. Does it mean the mentality that made people think management was necessary? Or the way they were going about it? Or the people themselves? Does anyone have the source for context? Rumiton (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In a positive sense - the mind-set neded to run a complex organization. In a negative context, see Dilbert. Collect (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thank you, I think I can see what he was talking about. The context seems clearly Dilbertian. I will try to make that clearer in the article. Rumiton (talk) 09:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Schnabel=Babble

To do the poor chap justice he has probably been badly translated, but I agree. The resulting gibberish has no place here. Rumiton (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Teachings duplicated

per conversation with jossi et al, the Teachings section is basically duplicated elsewhere in WP. As a result, most of it is not pertinent to the BLP of Prem Rawat. Can we go back to a much shorter version rather than have the whole section back in place? I am not sure, in point of fact, that any of it is needed here, but would think a very short precis would work. Thanks! Collect (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what we've got now.Momento (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Is the line about opinions of practitioners directly germane, however? Collect (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that the teachings should be removed pretty much completely -- they are not directly related to the BLP, they are duplicated in other articles, and they serve, at best, to attract discussion unrelated to a biography. I note a great deal has been re-added, although in my discussion with jossi I was told there should be no objection to the removal. Collect (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the material is unnecessary in this article. At most a short paragraph might be left, per WP:SUMMARY. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Rawat's teachings are more important to his notability than anything else. No teachings no notability. The fact that we have a separate article for teachings show how important they are. But readers should be able to get some understanding of his claim to fame from this article without having to go elsewhere.Momento (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As per "Each article on a subtopic, are encyclopedic articles in their own right and contain their own lead sections (which will be quite similar to the summary in their 'parent' article". And that is what we have here.Momento (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:SUMMARY#Levels_of_desired_details, this section should be at least several paragraphs long, which is now the case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That article is due for an overhaul, and after that the summary that Momento wrote for this article also needs to be worked on to properly cover the topic. There's no end to the work to be done on Wikipedia! ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to have the teachings separate from the biography. What is the problem if it is long? It is already much longer than in other languages. His teachings are more important for his biography than how many premies were there in Netherland in 1984 or any of the too many absurd details the purpose of which is to portray what the media said, the same media that said there were WMD in Iraq and a plane dissapeared and vaporised for the first time in a century of aviation history, and 3 skyskrapers in NY decided to choose the same day to be the fist ones to collapse by fire. Is there an article for Picasso and another one for his paintings or one for Mozart and another one for his music, etc.? Put all or most of the DLM times anecdotes where they belong, in the DLM article, and put the teachings where they belong. Why are there very few or no comments from DLM times in Wikipedia's articles in other languages and a lot in English? It has nothing to do with the language, so unless I find a better explanation, the explanation I have is that after all Wikipedia is American, and many things are seen very differently in the US and elsewhere, including other democracies. Prem without his teachings is not Prem, no matter how long the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedrero (talk • contribs) 07:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Pedrero, you ask if we have separate articles for Mozart and for his music. Yes, we do. In fact Wikipedia has over 100 articles on Mozart, his life and his music. See Category:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. WE have over fifty articles on Picasso. Category:Pablo Picasso. In both cases there are separate biographies and articles on their works. Prem Rawat is a teacher, but he is also a man. He has a wife, children, brothers, and properties, just like Mozart did. Regarding the Prem Rawat articles in other languages, they are not as well developed. The article in Spanish is very incomplete and barely mentions some of the subject's most important periods, like his time with the DLM. Even worse is the Simple English version. Of course, these versions have at least one editor in common, so if there's a fault that may be the place to look. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I may have made a mistake with Picasso and Mozart, but is it normal for spiritual figures to have a separate place for their teachings? Majority? 50-50? Minority?--Pedrero (talk) 06:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Shorten this article

Several people have suggested shortening this article. I'd like to start by removing the entire reception section. Anything a value can be incorporated in the article. "Media" can easily be incorporated, "Charisma and Leadership" belongs in a text book, not here; and "Following" is mainly a bunch of conflicting data and generic.Momento (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Who are these people suggesting that the article should be shortened? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

A bold and worthy plan. Rumiton (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

RAP = Remove All Puff <g>. Even if you like it. Collect (talk) 12:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• Why do you disagreee?--Pedrero (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's start with the Reception section. I've relocated Downton to where it belongs and removed the Melton which is already used earlier. Is there anything in "Reception" of any value? I don't think so.Momento (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The "reception" section, or something like it, is required by NPOV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

We'll done Collect. Have a go at "Charisma and Leadership". I'd dump the lot.Momento (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT makes a number of good points, among the more definitive of which is ...it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged. It goes on to suggest more compelling reasons to consider when pondering if content should be kept or removed. WP:BLP, WP:RS and so forth. Over to you. Rumiton (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There is zero point from an encyclopedic point in having a source say - "I didn't like it but others did". Particularly some one like Kent.Momento (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I have just been looking at Charisma and Leadership, trying to figure if any of it might be relevant to this biography and notable enough for inclusion. There doesn't seem to be much. It seems to be mainly a bunch of speculative hypotheses on the general nature of leadership, with allusions to possible claims possibly made by such leaders and the difficulties those claims might create, with no reliable sources telling us that the subject of this article ever made those claims or experienced those difficulties. Then there are contradictory statements, "on the one hand" and "on the other hand" type stuff, the result being near incoherency. Let's toss it. Rumiton (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I once again object to any substantial edits being made on this article without prior discussion here. I don't care that "some people" want the article shortened. It most likely cannot be shortened to satisfy "some." There is much too much sourced material that gives context to this article to just start chopping away at it willy nilly. Besides, the "puff" isn't being removed, quite the contrary, the "puff" is staying and the context and important truths about Rawat are being removed. Please discuss edits here first. Remember, this article is still on probation. Sylviecyn (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

What, precisely, do you feel is essential which is not in other articles? This, as I understand it, is supposed to be his biography, not a theological opus nor a list of his faults enumerated one by one. As there is no sign of any editwar going on, I doubt that the "probation" of this article is an impediment to improving the article. Collect (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like the probation to be lifted then you'll need to apply to the ArbCom, the entity that put the topic on probation. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat. As for what's essential to this article, that's the same as for any article - it should summarize what reliable sources say about the subject using the neutral point of view, giving appropriate weight to each issue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No material has been deleted. It has either been relocated in this article or more correctly moved to the DLM article.Momento (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice edits

Good going, Collect. The article looks better already. Rumiton (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Long way to go. And I hope no one gets offended by my edit summaries <g>. Collect (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's tackle "Charisma and leadership" next. The last thing we should have is a slimmed down article with a fat "Charisma".Momento (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

And "Following" could got straight to the DLM article.Momento (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Moved Pilarzyk to DLM as it was about the movement, not Rawat.Momento (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Following on from Collect, I've reduced the lead. Primarily removing the sentence about organization to keep the focus on Rawat. Removed Shri Hans and gave greater emphasis to the explosive growth of Rawat and DLM in the west.Momento (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I object to all of these edits being made without discussion beforehand. This is once again becoming another sanitized, hagiographical revision of Prem Rawat's life. What Rawat teaches isn't even mentioned in the lede -- Knowledge -- and Shri Hans, the most important part of the origin of Rawat's becoming a guru has been deleted from the lede. So much context is being removed. Please have the courtesy to discuss your edits before making them in the future. Thanks Sylviecyn (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

In the 39 edits since WillBeback's last edit the majority have been small grammar changes and relocating within the article. The only material removed that is no longer in the article in some other place is either irrelevant or, as Collect terms, puff. From THE LEAD ""His tens of thousands of followers in the West see themselves as adherents of a system of teachings that extol the goal of enjoying life to the full" puff. From LEAVING INDIA "One secretary accepted responsibility for the valuables and another for failing to declare them" irrelevant. From AMERICA 1973 "One of the assailants was eventually identified as Mahatma Fakiranand, one of the first mahatmas designated by Rawat and described as his "number one disciple" being discussed elsewhere. From COMING OF AGE "What do you expect him to do," a premie said, "travel from LA. to Houston on a donkey?"" puff. "After scaling down the DLM's activities in the early 1980s, Rawat created the North American Sponsorship Program to help pay for the property" irrelevant. From TEACHINGS "and says that "Knowledge" will take "all your senses that have been going outside all your life, turn them around and put them inside to feel and to actually experience you." puff & "Knowledge, roughly translated, means the happiness of the true self-understanding. Each individual should seek to comprehend his or her true self, which brings a sense of well-being, joy and harmony. The Knowledge includes four meditation procedures: Light, Music, Nectar and Word. The process of reaching the true self within can only be achieved by the individual, but with the guidance and help of a teacher. Hence, the movement seems to embrace aspects of world-rejection and world-affirmation. The tens of thousands of followers in the West do not see themselves as members of a religion, but the adherents of a system of teachings that extol the goal of enjoying life to the full." puff. From RECEPTION - Pilarzyk about DLM relocated to DLM and Kent because it means nothing. From MEDIA - "Media reports were unfavorable and many of the people who were antagonistic toward Rawat and the movement were ill informed and not interested in learning how his followers might be benefiting from his teachings. Downton gives an example of a woman who told him "'I can't stand the boy guru' but all she knew was what she read in the newspapers, she had never met or talked at length to a premie" already covered elsewhere & examples of media & Words of Peace, a television series based on speeches by Rawat, was broadcast internationally, and received several Brazilian community television awards". From FOLLOWERS - lots of membership figures that belong in DLM and Schnabel which is unimportant. Perhaps you can explain how this deleted material "sanitizes" RawatMomento (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This article blew out outrageously some time ago, and entirely without discussion as to relevance. The only justification seemed to be "These are reputable sources" and "Length doesn't matter... this is not a paper encyclopedia." Now that time has allowed some perspective the puff on both sides is becoming clear, as are the examples of uninspired writing. Btw, my dictionary gives sanitise as create the conditions necessary for good health. A healthy article is surely a good thing. Rumiton (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Sylviecyn, if the article right now seems promotional to you, then please make suggestions that will help neutralise it, but without sending it back in the direction of snide insinuations and slanted wording we have seen in the past. We have seen that this only invites more of the opposite as payback, which gets us more of the nastiness, and the downward spiral continues. A new day dawns. Yes. Rumiton (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the essence of the problem with this biography. Whatever is positive is promotional and propaganda, so only negative things may be inserted.--84.87.252.20 (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Rawat speaks

This article is about someone who is notable for leaving home to travel the world spreading his message. Without the material Will deleted and I have now re-instated you could be forgiven for thinking he spent the 70s in Malibu. A Rawat article without mentioning where he travelled and independent first hand perception of his talks is a grave disservice to our readers.Momento (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

We need reliable sources. Cagan is not a reliable source. His speeches are his techings, which belong in the "teachings" article. If you want to include one impression of his speaking style then you shold also include the Hunt impression, which you deleted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Cagan is reliable for non contentious material as agreed by all. I think you mean Kent and his remarks are useless since it says - I though it stupid, others though it great. This is exactly the puff that should be removed.Momento (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Please point to this agreement. If we're going to remove Kent then remove the Levy bit too. It's just fluff. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Cagan has been quoted in this article for months. You can put Kent back in if you like. It's a ridiculous quote that adds nothing.Momento (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the speech, etc, to the "Teachings" article, and added Kent there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've re-inserted the travel info which you also removed. And the important and rare first hand description of Rawat. People, and I include you Will, need to know what Rawat was like from a neutral POV. Momento (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Kent is a first-hand view too, one who gives a different point of view. Include both or neither. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Kent is first hand but adds nothing. "I didn't like it, my companions did". Can you explain how that advances anyone's understanding of Rawat. I can't see it.Momento (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

He is currently, by profession, an inspirational speaker. Levy says his speaking style is humble, Kent says it is banal. Both perspectives add to the readers knowledge of the subject's speaking and teaching style. NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view. Kent is a scholar while Levy is, what? Further, if we're going to add an assertion that he says he isn't divine then we need to add a lot more information about that sticky wicket in order to give a complete picture. Right now it's too one-sided . ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you both should consider to take a much needed break from this article? I have reverted to the last edit by Collect. Please stop your tit-for-tat edits and remember that the article is under probation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverting isn't helpful Jossi. Can you please give an explanation for your edit? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If Jossi doesn't explain his revert of many edits then I'll undo it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see rather than explain he reverted himself. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

And the article has returned to the pile of contradictory gibberish it was before. Let's see what happens next. Rumiton (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of the meterial I removed is fully covered in other articles. There is no need for this article to attain the status of an elephant in WP <g>. And making it a camel buy adding bits and oeces of puff and counter-puff is not the way to go in my opinion. Collect (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Collect, it seems to me you are a genuinely neutral voice, perhaps the only one around here. Puff and counter-puff has long been the bane of this group of articles. I hope you have long legs. Rumiton (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, now this is looking good to me, neutral and informative, without the sensationalist 1970s news reporting that always has to be debunked when the fuller picture comes in. The only problem I see is that now it is looking like a press release, and I sincerely ask for the help of all in further neutralising the tone of this article. Rumiton (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Collect, could you please explain why you restored this text, and why it doesn't count as "puff"?

• Rawat returned to England and the United States in June and in August he spoke in Boston to a crowd of 9,000. [46][47] A reporter described Rawat as "...a real human being. He spoke humbly, conversationally, and without any apparent notion that he was God. In fact he seemed to consciously undercut the divine stage show and the passionate words said in his honor. Devotees and mahatmas speak of him as the guy who will out-Christ Christ, yet the guru himself claims, not that he is divine, but that his Knowledge is".[48] Sociologist James Downton said that from his early beginnings Rawat appealed to his followers to give up concepts and beliefs that might impede them from fully experiencing the "Knowledge" or life force, but this did not prevent them from adopting a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity, and to project millennial preconceptions onto him and the movement.[49]

The material appears to be to a one-sided assessment of the subject, and a non-biographical assessment of his teachings. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• I would appreciate definitions of "puff" and "fluff, from Rumiton, Collect, and Momento,please, because I think we're talking about completely different things when using those terms. :) It's time to reinstate the "Criticism of Prem Rawat" article, if this kind of whitewashing of history is going to continue. I strongly encourage everyone to start specific discussions about any future edits prior to making the actual edits -- that's how it was done during mediation. Btw, I don't agree that Cagan's book is acceptable for anything in this article. I consider Cagan's book to be a paid-for piece of work by a Hack writer and definitely not a bona fide biography with chapter notes, and source notations, as any reputable biography will contain, plus it's filled with factual errors and omissions as was well-demonstrated during informal mediation. By the way, here's the latest fundraising effort by Elan Vital, U.S. and by The Priyan Foundation which is the entity that owns and operates Prem Rawat's private Gulfstream 550 jet. Sylviecyn (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

"Puff" includes effusive praise of a subject, and material which is of trivial importance in a biography of a living person. "Counter-puff" includes criticism about minutia in a person's life, and categorizing the person in a negative light. WP is not a theological debating society. It is intended to have encyclopedia-quality articles. If you would like to debate a reference, then do so. Categorizing a reference as being by a "hack writer" does not, alas, meet the criteria for finding a book to not be a "reliable source." News about fundraising should probably be found in the articles about the organizations. Collect (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In that case, please discontinue using those terms and use better descriptive terms in the future to describe your edits because "puff" and "fluff" are not descriptive for purposes of English, and certainly are not defined in any English Language dictionaries as you described above. I may be old-fashioned but I still go by Websters and other dictionaries to get definitions of English words in order to use them correctly, and I'm definitely not willing to try to decipher what your or others' made-up definitions may or may not be. Therefore, if you use those terms in the future, I'll be reverting each of your edits that don't have commonly understandable edit summaries. Btw, I'm not debating theology, so don't accuse me of doing that. Moreover, it's my opinion that Cagan didn't write a credible biography of Rawat, based on all of my own and others' research on the book, as well as many lengthy discussions over the past twelve months about it. It's not necessary to reinvent the wheel here by rehashing the subject of Cagan's credibility again. That's why I suggested to you that you take some time to review the talk archives of each article,the ARBCOM case, as well as the mediation discussion pages and proposed edits there. To get you started, Please read Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Prem Rawat, and Issue Topic D: Cagan for previous discussion regarding Cagan's book. Based on those and many other discussions, I won't be convinced that Cagan is a reliable source for anything in this article. That's simply not a happening thing. Happy reading! Thanks!  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

RHD " a commendation, esp. an exaggerated one, of a book, an actor's performance, etc. " AHD: "a. An approving or flattering recommendation. b. A piece of writing, as on the jacket of a book, containing often exaggerated praise, used for promotional purposes. " Also "O.E. pyffian "an act of puffing," of imitative origin. Used of small swellings and round protuberances since 1538. Meaning "type of light pastry" is recorded from 1419; that of "small pad for applying powder to skin or hair" is from 1658. Figurative sense of "flattery, inflated praise" is first recorded 1732. Puffy "swollen" is from 1664. Puff-ball, type of fungus, is from 1649; puffer, type of fish, is from 1814." So "puff" is, indeed, found in dictionaries with the meanings used here. As for threats of reversion, such does not meet any WP guidelines I have found. Lastly as for your vaunted cite, I have not added any ref from Cagan, so I fail to see why that ref suddenly becomes important when, if anything, I have tried to remove unneeded material here. BTW, the cites from Cagan appear to be non-controversial (dates and the like) can you show me an objectionable use in the article so we can address it? Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew that. My point is that "puff" and "fluff" terms are far too ambiguous for anyone's use when editing this particular article and calling this or that "puff" or "fluff" is so subjective on this article that using them as edit summaries renders them useless. I trust you take some time to read at least some of the talk page archives, as well as all of the scholarly material which is linked at the top of this page in order to familiarize yourself with the subject of this article. It's important that you do so, imo, because you admit that you know little about this subject. That fact doesn't make you more neutral, it only makes you uninformed should you choose to ignore previous discussions, which admittedly are lengthy. This is an encyclopedia, after all, which deals with writing sourced facts. Btw, this article is very well-sourced. So, I ask that before you do anymore editing, you follow Jayen's example below by offering revisions here prior to making them on the article. Btw, I do like the way you edit, in terms of rewriting awkward text to make it more reader-friendly -- you do an exceptional job at that, but please don't remove important information in the process, for example, as you did in the Charisma section. Hope this explains my position. Thanks! (FYI, Jossi is a man.) Sylviecyn (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have generally used "puff" as it is a specific word, and no one else said they did not know what it meant. I have gone through the archives enough to see how the article got to here. I read enough (well, I do not read Dutch well) to recognize why all those sociologists were used ... they have books which can be cited as reliable sources, whether or not the material actually improves an article's clarity. They were placed in a strange attempt to give criticism strong weight when some were fighting against anything smacking of criticism. The resulting give-and-take resulted in the "camel" we had. This camel is now down 20% in size (more or less) and can lose more weight without affecting the value of the article (I would argue that criticism which is unreadable is not very strong at all - and important or not, if people do not understand what is being said, it becomes unimportant totally). Collect (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Collect, you restored the paragraph I cite above, even though it seems to fit your description of "puff". Can you explain why you restored it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, please explain why you reverted many edits here: [1]. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I reverted on person only -- jossi had reverted to my last version, reverted self, and so I reverted back to the last version I did. Not "many edits" at all. I trust this is clear. Collect (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not clear. You haven't said why you reverted. And you still haven't answered the specific question of why you restored the cited paragraph. I'm having trouble figuring out why Helen Jones-Kelley[2] is being edited so differently from this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I reverted because jossi had sound reasons for her reversion. I did not get rid of "many" edits, and I trust my neutral postion here is unquestioned. And for some odd reason if I revert, I do not then make lots of other edits at the same time. As for any other article, would you like the full talk pages inserted here? In that case, there is an editor who deletes almost everything critical of J-K, while adding puff for her, (including deletion of her political party <g>). In this article there remains a fulsome amount of critical commentary related to a BLP. I happen to think that critical commentary of his movements belong in those articles, while criticism of him in this article has not been removed. The ideal of a BLP is "NPOV" and I will gladly push against any editor who pushes POV to the detriment of the article. Collect (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Every editor is responsible for his or her edits. Reverting because some other editor momentarily thought it a good idea doesn't absolve responsibility for the edit. If Jossi had good reasons for making and then undoing an edit let him explain them himself. NPOV does not mean that the article is neutral balanced between negative and positive. It means that all significant viewpoints are presented using the neutral point of view. If there is more negative material written about a subject then we include more negative material on the subject. In the cases of [[Helen Jones-Kelley] and Prem Rawat, there are many negative remarks in reliable sources. We would be violating WP:NPOV if we didn't give them sufficient weight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

And the edit you accused me of making (the paragraph which was there when I edited before) was not an accurate claim against my edits, which are uniformly based on removing puff and counter-puff. As for saying that incomprehensible material is somehow balancing of anything, I think the comments in thatsection don't mean anything to most readers. Can you find actual readable sources for criticism of Rawat directly? Collect (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it and you restored it, so it's a fair question. If you're not going to answer it I won't ask it again. As for sources that criticize Rawat directly, there are many of them but they keep getting deleted too.[3] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The only "restoration" I did was to revert back to an earlier version. Honest, I did not try sneaking a paragraph in -- it was there in the first place. In general, you will find far fewer words when I edit, not more. And frankly the counting number of sources for or against someone does not address the real issue of having this be a real BLP, and not a bunch of puff and counter-puff. This article read like commentary on a ping-pong match. Collect (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you reverted ack to an earlier version and you've never said why you did that. In the future, please give explanations for your edits, especially when challenged. As for sources representing different viewpoints, we have to decide how much weight to give to each element. The number and quality of sources expressing a particular viewpoint is the best tool we have to decide appropriate weight. If 100 sources say X, and one source says Y, then it would be incorrect to give X and Y equal weight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"Ambassador for Peace"

• On October 2006, Rawat was made an "Ambassador for Peace" by the rector of the International University of Peace,...."Prem Rawat Honored by International University of Peace". TPRF.org. Retrieved 2008-12-01.

Can we get a third-party source for this? It's obviously self-serving so an SPS is inadequate. If it's notable it should have been noted in a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain what is "unduly self-serving" in reporting that Mr. Rawat was awarded an honorary title by an international university? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Any claims of honors should be reported in secondary sources. Among other things, it's necessary in order to make sure that the facts are reported accurately. I wasn't here for the "UN Anniversary" matter, which I've read about in the archives, but it's an example of the problem. Similarly, the "Rawat Day" in SF turned out to be non-notable. As I note below, when searching Google for "International University of Peace" almost every hit mentions Rawat. The WP article on the university was written by you. We need an independent source to make sure that this is reported correctly and is notable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the UNIPAZ article, you are welcome to verify the sources I used, and help make it a better article. As for Any claims of honors should be reported in secondary sources, this presumes that a charitable foundation is misleading in his reporting. Why would they do such a thing? Are you allowing your prejudices obfuscate your editorial judgment? WP:SPS speaks of "unduly self-serving" claims, which I do not believe fits the description in this case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ministry of Culture, Brazil, in which the International Festival for Peace (Festival Mundial da Paz) is mentioned. Mr. Rawat received the honor in that occasion [4]
• Brazilian news outlet [5], [6]
• Venceslao Soligo - Insieme/Asib - Brazil Sept 25, 2006 [7]

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

One of those might do, but the source added to the article does not appear to be a reliable 3rd-party source. It's the responsibility of the editor adding the material to find sufficient sources. I'm disappointed that an editor would keep adding this non-neutral material with dubious sources. I'm going to remove it, please don't restore it until we've agreed on it. As you can see below, some editors don't think it belongs in the article at all, regardless of source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You asked for third party sources, and I provided them, so please do not delete material about a fact about which there is not dispute. He received that honor, as per the SPS and the third-party sources I provided above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you've read this thread, Jossi, but the matter is in dispute. When I search on the text you posted as the source, it appears on a Rawat-related website, "Words of Peace".[8] Please find a site that isn't just reposting a press release. Lastly, it's not just a matter of whther the event occurred, but also the context. Is this an honor that's handed out every day, like Newsom's "Rawat Day"? Was it in response to a donation? This is necessary context. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that may be a copy of a press release. I replaced the text and the source. Hope this is OK now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The governement site says that the co-presenter with Rawat was "Mr. Jean Marie/Assessor of Communication (location: Choral room 2, Majestic Palace Hotel)".[9] That indicates his presentation wasn't even made at the university campus. The other site appears to be another press release posting site.[10] The translation of their motto at the bottom of the page is "The world of the Art, Communication and Marketing in Santa Catarina." Is anyone here proposing that they are a conventional news source, with editorial review? I deleted the two co-attendees, since it's not clear what relevance they have to the subject's appearance. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That indicates his presentation wasn't even made at the university campus. I never asserted that. The press release is of the organizers of the festival. The site is Portal focado em Propaganda, Jornalismo, Marketing , Eventos, Cultura, Negócios, Turismo e Internet. But going back to the key question: why are you doubting these sources? The event took place, fact; he was a keynote speaker, fact; he received an award from the rector of Unipaz, fact. These are verifiable facts, and not disputed. And the fact that he was mentioned as a noted speaker alongside the Minister of Culture of Brazil, is also not disputed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say he was a keynote speaker? Where does it say he appeared alongside anyone other than Jean Marie? The notice on the acontecendoaqui.com.br site just says that the listed people had indicated they'd attend. The purpose of that notice appears to be to solicit journalists to attend the event. If Jossi thinks we should present "facts" derived from dubious sources and without knowing any of the context then I'd like to hear that. Otherwise, we need to establish the context and have sources that meet WP:V and WP:BLP. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You are not answering my questions, but that is your prerogative, I guess. The material speak for itself, you are welcome to cast doubt on these sources. The fact remains that PR was mentioned as the main speakers in that event, regardless if you like that or not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I've answered your question several times. The specific asertions are in dispute because the sources don't meet Wikipedia standards. Furthermore, important context is missing. Please see my comments. I don't object to the text noiw in the article. "In 2006, Rawat spoke at the Festival Mundial da Paz (International Festival for Peace) in Brazil." If you want to add additional assertion then we'll need better sources that you've provided so far. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

<<<< A abertura do Festival Mundial da Paz será com o Ministro da Cultura e Embaixador da Paz, Gilberto Gil. Prem Rawat fará sua participação, no dia 1º de setembro, às 15h30, no Centro de Eventos, da Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, onde o evento da Paz será realizado. [11] Revista Bem Publico [12]≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(rough xlation: The opening of the Festival of World Peace will be with the Minister of Culture and Ambassador of Peace, Gilberto Gil. Prem Rawat will take part on September 1, at 15.30, in the Events Center, the Universidad Federal de Santa Catarina, where the event will be held. That also explain the "Santa Catarina" of the other source,. Get it? (it is the city in which the university resides) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That source is already in the article and we've already discussed it here. Is there a point that I'm missing? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Help yourself please. Which one do you dislike the least?

http://theypi.net/video.php?id=84

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-22954859_ITM

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-13226004.html

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/prem-rawat-honored-by-international-university-of-peace/2305843009635294939/?icid=VIDURVENT01

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5554/is_/ai_n21882386

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-125420562.html

http://peace.meetup.com/206/calendar/9163267/--Pedrero (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Will will dislike them all equally. And he'll have a point, since none of them looks like it is a third-party, i.e. fully independent, source. Jayen466 04:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're right. "PR Newswire" certainly isn't a 3rd-party source. Even more concerning, most of the Google hits for "International University of Peace" mention Rawat. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The Youtube/AOL video doesn't even show Rawat being honored. It's just him speaking. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

One of the videos is only the speech but the first video shows the whole act, 1) Prem being introduced, 2) his speech and 3) the Dean giving him the title or diploma. What is the problem with this?--Pedrero (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean http://theypi.net/video.php?id=84. Two problems: first, I couldn't see the video (some technical probel I guess). Second, it appears to be a Rawat-related website instead of a 3rd-party site. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there's something in Ramparts, Creem or the Fifth Estate? They're reliable.Momento (talk) 09:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If there are references in 3rd-party sources, please provide them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If it doesn't involve money, sex or bigotry we won't find it in Ramparts, Creem or the Fifth Estate.Momento (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This does not indicate anything more than any honorary degree does. Most articles do not include such honors. And with most of these tracing back to a press release, I fear the information is not of very high quality. Collect (talk) 11:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is "only" honorary. But why can't it be included just as many "dishonorary" sentences? It seems to me that dishonorary things have preference over honorary ones and disrespect over respect.--Pedrero (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Precendent is that honorary stuff does not make it into biographies. And "honorary" has nothing to do with "dishonorary" at all. Collect (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Honorary degrees are bestowed upon people whose life works are recognized by colleges and universities. I don't see any honorary degrees in Pedrero's post above or reliable sources for his above links. That said, some Wiki bios do mention honorary degrees, which is perfectly reasonable if including mention of such degrees are based on reliable sources, not primary sources. See Terry Wogan, Stephen Colbert, and Maya Angelou. For purposes of this article, should Prem Rawat receive any honorary degrees, and there are reliable sources that state he has, then such honors ought to be included in the article. The above-mentioned "honors" aren't honorary degrees, they are something else. Also, Wikipedia isn't a court of law, so precedent isn't an issue. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Problem is that this opens the door to the interminable "balancing act" which wreaked havoc on the article. Is that what people desire here? Collect (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all, so long as something is cited using reliable sources and writing with NPOV. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No balancing act. No, Sir. People do not desire that. That way madness lies. Rumiton (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh stop being so dramatic, already. It's getting old, fast, Rumiton. This is an article on Wikipedia. It's about a guy who lives in Malibu, California, who likes to live rich and fly the best private aircraft available at the expense of other people. His only notability is that he became a satguru at age eight, and that he became famous in the press when he first came to the UK and U.S. Now he's a virtual unknown commodity in the western world, most likely due to his own refusal to talk to the mainstream media. That's why sources are so limited, but they are the sources we have. If you've got a complaint or issue with that, take it up with Prem Rawat. Tell him to book some time on Larry King Live. It's not like we're writing about the Lord of the Universe or the Messiah, right?  :) Sheesh! This isn't science or mathematics.  :) :) Sylviecyn (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Mahatma sources

Moved to Talk:Prem Rawat/mahatmas. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting article

I stumbled on this WP:WORLDVIEW. I feel parts of it have quite a lot of relevance to this group of articles. It rewards a look. Rumiton (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Conversely, I found it platitudinous. WP has great diversity among editors, and by requiring proper sourcing of claims avoids most blatant biases. Saying that WP is biased, but that a illiterate non-English speaking female laborer from south of the Equator would make articles better in some mysterious way does not compute. Collect (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

One of the most populous nations of the world is India, which also has very large population of English speakers. In the 1970s, according to the US press, there was considerable attention paid to the subject by government [and religious] authorities. Very little of that is in this article. If a mere opinion of an Italian newspaper is worth including then perhaps more views from India should be added. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

And FWIW, there are many Indians and Pakistanis on WP -- which kinda wrecks the bias claim ... Collect (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have any relevance to these articles. This is off-topic. I'm an English-speaking American who has plenty of POVs (thank Gawd) and biases up the geegee. What human doesn't and which human shouldn't? I'm not trying to be anyone but who I am. Why would I even try to do otherwise? This is the English Wikipedia and it's incumbent upon anyone reading and editing here to know English first and fluently, otherwise, they won't succeed here, and they most definitely won't be able to read the articles here. I'm not trying to be a world citizen (never interested me, still doesn't) nor am I endeavoring to have a worldview. I'm not that arrogant nor am I that grandiose about myself. I only have the simple views I have cultivated in my 55 years of life here in lovely New England, besides the few years I worked for Maharaji in Florida at DECA, on his first B707 jet which was a real education to say the least. I know there are many foreign editors on Wikipedia, but it's their responsibility to make sure they are English-fluent, not the opposite, because, after all, this is the English Wikipedia and this website is based in the United States. So long as editors write NPOV with reliable sources, there are no problems. Who wrote that bunch of baloney, btw? I can't stand that multi-culti bullsh*t. Sometimes Wikipedians get too far up their own arses for their own good!  :) :) Sylviecyn (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, big response. Methinks the white-Anglosaxon-Protestant-Jewish-American lady doth protest a little too much. (smiley faces to imply good-natured tolerance.) Rumiton (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well, sometimes I get a little crabby when folks try to preach the multi-cultural, "tolerance" baloney. I'm sure no one's noticed the crabbiness in me before as I keep it so well-hidden, but I consider it an added perk of being a middle-age woman who's lived quite a hard life. The one thing I have no tolerance for is willful ignorance. Otherwise, everybody is fine just who they are. Btw, I may live in Yankee-land (New England), but I'm far being a Yankee. Second generation Polish-Catholic through and through. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Sylviecyn, I didn't mean you! Now I see why the comment on my talkpage. I was misquoting Hamlet, referring to all the other "ladies" who jumped in to defend their innocence of any possible cultural bias. Which we all have. And now I've probably made it worse. Anyway, thanks for your good-humoured response to my apparent insult. Rumiton (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Halley beating

Restored the deletion of the paragraph about the Detroit incident, which was performed by an uninvolved editor User:Collect. It can be moved to the DLM article, and summarized in a short sentence here is indispensable. ≈ jossi ≈ [(talk) 00:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

We've been over this before. The pie throwing and subsequent beating were highly-reported events in the history of the subject. I've restored the well-sourced material. It would take far more than a short sentence to summarize the matter with its correct weight. Since the material partly involves Rawat and partly involves the DLM, and since there is so many sources available, perhaps it's time to spin this out into a separate article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? I think that it is unnecessary... It was incident, sure. It may need to be reported, sure. But a paragraph of that size in the context of this article. No, don't think so... It simply does not fit with the rest of the article's subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The subject is the life or Prem Rawat. I don't know what you mean by it doesn't fit with the subject. It was the subject who was the target of the pie, it was the subject's top followers who committed the .beating, it was the subject's name featured prominently in every description of the event, it was the subject's reputation which changed, and it was the subject's organization that paid damages to settle a civil suit. And we're still omitting many important details about the event. I suggest again that the best solution is to spin this off into a standalone article. The event is sufficiently notable for one. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not that notable, Will. It is miscellanea at best. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If it's an article, AfD could help us settle that. For now, I'd be amenable to just reverting to the version of that incident from a month ago, before Momento started re-writing it with no discussion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree Jossi. It's undue weight on a massive scale and guilt be association. Rawat's involvement was he was attacked by Halley and forgave him, that's where it ends. The fact of the attack by unrelated assailants is of lesser note and only of interest because Rawat organized an enquiry that found the assailants and held them for the police.Momento (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If you think it's undue weight then why did you add more (unsourced) text, thereby giving it greater weight? Does anyone object to reverting this paragraph to how it was a month ago? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a beat up. It deserves two sentences at most.Momento (talk) 06:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Then why did you expand it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

To include what Rawat did.Momento (talk) 07:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• While we're on the topic of weight, why is an appearance at Hynes Civic Auditorium in Boston so important that it deserves a paragraph of its own? How widely reported was it? Just the single source? Also, would Momento please include proper citations, including the title of the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Because it describes Rawat speaking. And if you care to look you will see the cite includes the title of the article " EastWest Journal "An Expressway over Bliss Mountain"by Phil Levy P 29". Momento (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that every speech of Rawat's deserves a pararaph? This article is gonna be awfully long! The citation that needs a title, and author if there is one, is this: Page 2 - Section B – Sun News – Las Cruces, New Mexico - Wednesday, August 22, 1973. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It certainly has more value than the joke paragraphs about the cars.Momento (talk) 07:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Title? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

We still need a title for this source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Mahatma Fakiranand was absolutely not an unrelated assailant, quite the contrary, he was a close associate of Prem Rawat. He was also an agent of Divine Light Mission of which Prem Rawat was the spiritual leader and titular head. One cannot merely report one portion of the incident without reporting the other. One cannot report that Prem Rawat was the victim of a simple assault (the pieing) and leave out the fact that the person who pied him became the victim of attempted murder within days of his simple assault on Rawat. It's like reporting that there was a motorcade in Dallas, TX on November 22, 1963 and omitting the assassination of JKF. It was the assault on Haley that made international news as well as the pieing. No one is suggesting that Rawat be blamed for the attack, and anyway there are no sources that would substantiate such a claim here. Sylviecyn (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Wasn't Fakiranand the most senior Mahatma, the first one chosen by Prem Rawat himself? I keep seeing the name. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah, here's this:
      • Mahatma Fakiranand is a very special mahatma, being one of the first premies elevated to that sacred state after the barely pubescent godhead (he's one day older than Donny Osmond) assumed the title of Perfect Master in 1969 upon the death of his father, the founder of the Divine Light Mission. Fakiranand is fondly referred to as Guru Maharaj Ji's "drunken puppy," because of his rather peculiar sense of devotion. The day after the Detroit incident Tina Sanderson was receiving The Knowledge from Fakiranand, and she was more than a little perturbed by his zeal. He made the twenty-odd premies-to-be clean their pockets of all their possessions, scooping the spare change into a paper bag which, along with many other paper bags he would collect from other Knowledge sessions, he would personally deliver to the feet of his master. Tina remembers being particularly disturbed by the fanatical display of adoration Fakiranand exhibited. "He made us bow twenty times to a picture of Guru Maharaj Ji, making us promise to renounce all other gurus and religious beliefs. There was a picture of Guru Maharaj Ji which had fallen to the floor. He got all agitated and scolded us for not rushing over to pick it up. Other premies later told me that he would berate them for even turning their backs on a picture of Maharaj Ji." Considering that in most ashrams the divine physiognomy is present on all walls, even Rose Mary Woods would have a hard time contorting her body in such a manner as to face all four sides simultaneously.
    • Interestingly, that also covers the matter of mahatmas asking initiates to empty their pockets in order to give the money to Guru Maharaj Ji, who we know never charged for Knowledge. I guess he never inquired about where the bags of money appeared from. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Petty is such an unreliable source. It can't even get the date of Shri Hans' death right.Momento (talk) 06:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Just like Melton is unreliable because he can't even get Mishler's name right? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Melton's a scholar. It's clear the above source is a poor journalist.Momento (talk)

Clear because they got an immaterial year wrong? As we all know, you don't like journalists, Christian scholars, etc. etc, etc. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Will, do not distort chronology to eliminate the fact that DLM identified the assailants and informed the police.Momento (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There are many sources for this material, and they don't all agree on all of the details. You appear to be deleting details. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No one knew who the assailants were followers until DLM identified them. That is important and you can't keep taking it out.Momento (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Several sources say that the DLM misidentified the attackers, and may have even claimed, at first, that they weren't part of the movement at all. Like I said before, there are conflicting sources and we can't pick just one explanation and call it the right one. The version we had a month ago seemed an appropriate length and depth - why don't we just go back to that?

• On August 7, 1973, Rawat attended a Detroit Common Council gathering for a testimonial resolution praising his work. There he was hit with a pie made of shaving cream by a reporter from the Fifth Estate, an underground Detroit newspaper.[46][47] Rawat responded immediately by saying that he did not want his attacker arrested or hurt, but a week later two followers attacked the reporter and fractured his skull.[17][48] When local members heard of the incident they notified Rawat in Los Angeles who extended his regrets and condolences to Pat Halley's family, and requested that the DLM conduct a full investigation. The suspected assailants, one of them an Indian mahatma, were identified. They admitted their part in the attack and offered to turn themselves in. The Chicago police were immediately notified and contacted the Detroit Police,[49] who declined to initiate extradition proceedings, variously claiming that they were unable to locate the assailants, or that the cost of extraditing the assailants from Chicago to Detroit made it impractical.[50] This lack of action by the Detroit police was attributed by some to Halley's radical politics.[51][17][52] 01:18, October 24, 2008

Let's just backtrack all of this recent editing and go back to the version that Jossi and I and everybody else worked on months ago. This is the "consensus version". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have never yet seen a "consensus" version of this article. Rumiton (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Coming from an outside point of view, a "pieing" is generally considered trivial in biographies. In fact, it is generally not even mentioned. On the other hand, I would also like the biography trimmed to being a biography, instead of a melange of philosophy, teachings, events and politics. The customs issue is also something which, in most biographies, would be held to maybe two sentences. Collect (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and this article has gone in a direction that it took previously a couple of years ago, with highly POV'd editors adding more and more supporting refs until the article became what a Good Article reviewer described as "bloated." It will take a major effort of conciliation now to agree to a sensible reduction. And if it happens, I anticipate pressure to hive off trivia into secondary articles and claim they do not constitute living biographies. Rumiton (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid the opportunity to have a biography of a fascinating and determined person who came to the west as a 13 year old and created the fastest growing NRM in the west against the opposition of his family, the ridicule of the media and the stupid acts of others (customs, Halley, Millennium) is impossible owing to Will's insistence that the article's major focus is on money, the ridicule of the media and the stupid acts of others.Momento (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

And here's two sentences on the "customs incident" - "On arrival, Indian customs claimed a suitcase containing money and gifts was not properly declared which was widely reported in the western media as "Guru caught smuggling". The allegations were investigated by the Indian government and the Indian government later issued an apology which was not widely reported in the western media. Momento (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• If the incident had ended with the pie throwing, it probably wouldn't be worth mentioning at all. But the near-fatal beating of the pie thrower not only made national news, it changed the public's perception of the Guru. The event received significant coverage right away as well of over the following years. I hope that Rumiton is not including me among the "highly POV'd editors". It is Momento who started adding more material to this incident. Again, I suggest that this topic is worthy of an article of its own, and that in the meantime we'd best go back to the version that had a consensus, one which Jossi and I and others all worked on. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes that's right Will. Because the newspapers we're heavy on guilt by association and strangely quiet on Rawat's contribution to identifying the culprits and making them available to the police. Just like with the customs, just like with Millennium and just like with this article. It is your POV that dominates the Millennium article and now this one. Here's how the Halley section should be "On August 7, 1973, Rawat attended a Detroit Common Council gathering for a testimonial resolution praising his work. There he was hit with a pie made of shaving cream by Pat Halley, a reporter from the Fifth Estate, an underground newspaper.[46][47] Rawat responded immediately by saying that he did not want Halley arrested or hurt, but a week later Halley was attacked and his skull fractured. Suspecting that they might be followers, Rawat requested that the DLM conduct a full investigation, and the assailants were identified and held for the police. The Detroit Police[49] declined to pursue that matter, attributed by some to Halley's radical politics.[51][17][52] Momento (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that doesn't sound so bad to me. Will, I'm sure you've read all the sources concerned: is there anything factually wrong about Momento's version? Any other concern? Jayen466 23:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It's totally off base. For example, nowhere does it say that one of the followers was the senior mahatma in the U.S., that the fled across state lines, etc., etc. What is wrong with the version I posted above, that was in the article last month? Why is it that after spending a month working on this with Jossi, with Momento also around, he now feels the need to make a total re-write? This article is like a merry-go-round. Things get settled then folks want to start all over again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Will, I hadn't noticed the previous consensus version in the above swathe of text. Sorry. It isn't bad at all, and I can understand that you want the reference to the mahatma in there. But the "crossing state lines" thing I think can be jettisoned – it's too peripheral and too much for the reader to take in, IMO; Chicago Police, Detroit Police and all. I only "got it" after reading your commentary here on the talk page.

If fiddling with it is too much to deal with at the moment, I'd support a return to the old "consensus" version until there is a quieter day. Jayen466 01:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The mahatma was one of hundreds appointed by Rawat's mother and he left Rawat when he married. The problem with the "consensus" version is that it identifies the assailants as "followers" when no one knew who they were until DLM investigated. Chronologically it shouldn't be mentioned until after the DLM investigated. It's a little thing but it shows the sequence of events and the instrumental part Rawat played.Momento (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Indian or American, state lines or footpath is irrelevant to Rawat. What my version has that yours does not is that it is concise and covers only the main points and summarizes what happened - pie thrown, Rawat forgives, Halley attacked, followers suspected, Rawat orders investigation, assailants identified and held, police do nothing, Halley's political views. Seen in its bare bones Rawat looks good and that is why people with a negative POV don't like it.Momento (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't irrelevant to Rawat. What you call "my" version was the result of consensus between Jossi and me. The version you've got is incomplete and misleading. His senior apostle nearly killed a man on for throwing shaving cream, then the followers fled across state lines and were hidden at an ashram, the police and media were given conflicting stories by the DLM, and Rawat took no action against the attackers. In response, Rawat received a large amount of negative press. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Can editors slow down a bit? I am sure that there is a compromise version between Momento/Jayen's version and the previous agreed version. (Will: WP:Consensus can change) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It always does, at least on this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to "weight" I'd complain if this incident, reported by newspapers across the country, by magazines, and by scholars, is given the same or less weight than a speech in Boston reported in only one source and with no larger significance. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

And that of course is the major problem with this article and your POV. What Rawat says or does is not nearly as important to you as what some crazy follower does.Momento (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't discuss my POV unless you're willing for your own to become a topic of discussion. We have to follow our sources to judge how much weight to give to various issues. Numerous writers and scholars found the beating notable, only one obscure magazine writer found the Boston speech worth reporting. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, remember that this article is the biography of Rawat. There is a separate article that covers his teachings. Obviously, the fact that his senior apostle nearly beat a man to death has nothing to do with Rawat's message of peace. Right? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

My POV is well known and frequently discussed on these pages, even by you. Is this encyclopedia going to be written as a popularity contest? The Fifth Estate and every magazine/newspaper that repeats its material should be considered suspect since it was its reporter that attacked Rawat. Is there any doubt that the Fifth Estate knew of Halley's attack before hand?Momento (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there any doubt that the DLM knew of Mahatma Fakiranand's attack beforehand, considering he spent DLM money to fly to Detroit, and borrowed a DLM car to drive to the scene of the attack? Yes, the Fifth Estate is a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that DLM officials encouraged this guy to do what he did then put him in to the police? Rumiton (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC) And "consensus between Jossi and me?" What about the rest of us? I wonder if you understand the open-ended nature of this beast. There will always be new editors like Collect who show up and think it is nuts. It's too long, it's trivial in tone, it's biased, it's...whatever. You are going to look pretty silly saying "But Jossi and I reached a consensus on this version." And by the way, too long, trivial in tone and biased is exactly how it looks to me right now. Rumiton (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I never said that the DLM encouraged the beating of Halley. Momento asserted that the Fifth Estate , and anyone influenced by their writing, may be [suspect] an unsuitable source because of his unproven suspicion [and] that the editors there many have known about the pie throwing incident beforehand. As for Collect's edits, he deleted the entire Teachings section. Yet I don't see Rumiton saying that we should keep it deleted just because an uninvolved editor thought it was unnecessary. Uninvolved editors can help by providing outside views, but they often won/t know the relative significance of events, and if they stick around long enough they're not uninvolved any longer (like me). When Jossi and I were discussing the Halley incident months ago everyone was around and active, and so they were an implicit part of the consensus too. I don't think that anyone would be surprised that followers of Rawat would think that a discussion of the beating of Halley should be suppressed. As Jayen advises, WP:Writing for the enemy is a good way of achieving NPOV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The sentence about being "shipped off" to Germany and not "demoted" is unrelated to Rawat and should be removed.Momento (talk) 06:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Why? Rawat was in charge of the mahatmas, who initiated followers into Knowledge on his behalf. This particular mahatma was hand-picked by Rawat himself, and was the senior mahatma in the US, so he wasn't just some flunky. Rawat expressed regret for the beating, but his actions also speak. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That's your OR. I hope you're not using Penthouse as your source "Mahatma Fakiranand is a very special mahatma.. assumed the title of Perfect Master in 1969 upon the death of his father"? There are numerous sources that say his mother and Satpal were in charge of DLM. We know that Rawat was not of legal age and we know he did not have administrative control of DLM. And we know Fakiranand disobeyed Rawat. So what basis is there to think Rawat had any control over him a t all.Momento (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There are many sources for this stuff. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Many sources, that Rawat was in charge of the mahatmas? Please provide a source.Momento (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, many sources. But aside from what outsiders say, he had to have been in charge of them. I mean, he was saying that only he could provide Knowledge. Yet the way he was providing Knowledge was through the mahatmas who gave the actual initiations. If the mahatmas were under the authority of someone else, then it wasn't Guru Maharaj Ji who was supplying Knowledge. If that were the case then he was just giving talks at festivals. Was it BBJ who was really in charge of the mahatmas and of initiating followers into Knowledge? What was Guru Maharaj Ji's role in conducting initiations, if it wasn't supervising the mahatmas? Did someone else do the training and initiation of mahatmas? We have outside sources that say he took over administrative control when he turned 16, about five months after this incident. But what sources do we have that say he wasn't in control of the spiritual arm of the movement, or that he wasn't actually responsible for providing Knowledge by supervising or training the mahatmas? See, it doesn't make logical sense to say that he wasn't in charge of the mahatmas, because that would imply that Knowledge flowed from another source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No source, no inclusion.Momento (talk) 09:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't delete sourced, neutral material while we're discussing it. There are many sources for GMJ being the head or leader of his movement, which included the mahatmas and lower level folks too. While I'm digging up your sources, can you answer my question? If he wasn't in charge of the mahatmas, then what was his role in teaching the techniques of Knowledge? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't enough that material be sourced, I can find a source that says ice cream is made of cream, it has to be relevant to the subject. And please note "This is not a forum for general discussion of Prem Rawat".Momento (talk) 09:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If the subject had no control over the teaching of Knowledge, then it'd be good to have a source for that, because it tends to contradict statements he was making at the time. Should we write, "Rawat described himself as the only source of Knowledge, though it was actually his brother and mother who were in charge of initiating followers into the techniques"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Rawat was always acknowledged as the source of Knowledge but it is also well know that because of his age his mother and Satpal controlled the mission.Momento (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

How did he spread that Knowledge oif not through his mahatmas? Do you have any sources that say the mahatmas reported to BBJ or Mata Ji? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, we're not talking about the mission, we're talking about the mahatmas. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The source you're looking for and haven't provided is that Rawat sent Fakiranand to Europe and didn't demote him. It's coming out. Momento (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The sources below, and this is just a start, refer to them as "his mahatmas". They don't call them "BBJ's mahatmas". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

So what? Sources refer to his followers, does that mean we can put the actions of the ouiji board follower in this article? This is about Rawat not what his Mahatma or his mother or his followers do.Momento (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

We talk about the followers and organizations extensively in this article. If we deleted every mention of those then that'd be different. But the fact is that leaders are responsible for the actions of the people under them, especially when they act in the leader's name. And even more so when those senior disciples are "hand-picked" by the leader. If Rawat picked the mahatmas, if they were "his" mahatmas, then it's logical that he had authority over them. What source says he didn't have control over the mahatmas? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've got news for you, leaders aren't responsible for the actions of people "under them", they are only responsible for their own actions. Otherwise, George Bush would be responsible for every crime committed by every U.S. govt employee. And for the last time, I do not need a source that says " he didn't have control over the mahatmas", you need a source that says "Rawat sent Fakiranand to Europe". If you can't provide that source then where Fakiranand goes is irrelevant to this article.Momento (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

See Ronald Reagan. Even though Reagan professed ignorance of the Iran-Contra Affair, it still gets covered. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's an example of what you need "In 1969 the new leader, Guru Maharaj Ji, sent one of his mahatmas, or a 'realised soul', to Britain as a missionary to win converts for his master".Price, 1979

Well, that's sufficient. It shows that Maharaj Ji, even as early as 1969, was responsible for telling mahatmas where to go. It disproves that he was not in control of them. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

No it doesn't. It only tells us that he sent Charananand to England. Next you'll be saying he sent Fakiranand to Detroit. But while we're on the subject where is the source of the comment your provided that Rawat took the pieing with good grace?Momento (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

We have sources that call them "his mahatmas", that describe them as "hand-picked" or as his "personal representatives" who were "authorized" by Rawat to teach Knowledge. We have a reliable source saying that he ordered one to go England when he was only nine years old. There is no evidence that four years later he was no longer in control of the mahatmas, or that they had suddenly ceased to be his hand-picked personal representatives. We also have a source that says the DLM lied and tried to hide the follower's involvement or their identities. So their statements cannot be taken at face value. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I can’t really source it properly, but it is quite realistic and plausible to assume that Prem mainly „inherited“ the whole flock of Indian mahatmas from the days his father built up the mission, after whose death they were mainly under contol of Mata Ji and Bal Bhagwan Ji to begin with, while Prem in the beginning served more as a figurehead, until the transition and the family rift finally came to effect. The going after the split also shows in this direction, when almost all mahatmas followed Mata Ji, Fakiranand first of all. If they were hand-picked, then most probably by his father. The interim phase before the final switch from Indian to international mode must have been a very sensitive and dangerous time for Prem, and incidents like the one in Detroit show the urgency and necessity of a thorough reform. Indian mahatmas were known to be pretty much unadapted to Western culture, and some were rather militant, though not conspicuous under Indian conditions.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What you say may or may not be true, since there are apparently no sources for that version of events. We do have a source saying that Fakiranand in particular was chosen by Rawat himself.

In any case, since we can't seem to agree on these recent changes, I've restored the version from 01:18, October 24, 2008. I also deleted the Boston speech, which only has one source and doens't seem especially significant in the life of the subject. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Do not keep making large edits without discussion or reason. The Halley paragraph has been stable for weeks apart from your attempts to insert irrelevant material. And the Boston description is one a very few first hand descriptions a Rawat talking in the U.S. in 73 and is therefore of great value.Momento (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that paragraph has not been stable. You never initiated a discussion before making changes to it. FWIW, Jayen agreed that the October version would be OK. And if we're going to insert random quotes from single sources then this article could easily grow ten times as long. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Considerably more stable than your attempt with the irrelevant Fakiranand "description". And if you want to introduce a new Wiki rule that says only material with multiple sources can be used, I've got a few rules I'd like to introduce. Momento (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What was wrong with the October version? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added

• One of the assailants was eventually identified as Mahatma Fakiranand, one of the first mahatmas designated by Rawat and described as his "number one disciple".

That is sourced and relevant to Rawat. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No Will, it has nothing to do with Rawat. The paragraph is about Rawat being attacked and how Rawat reacted. The incident ends with the decision by the police to take no action. A description of Fakiranand is completely unnecessary.Momento (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Fakiranand was Rawat's hand picked number one disciple who nearly beat a man to death for throwing a pie at Rawat. I don't think you have the objectivity to recognize that the strong connection between them is relevant to this incident. Since you I'll take this to a notice board since we don't seem to be able to get a consensus here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Number one disciple? According the the 5th Estate.Momento (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Please let's not forget that Pat Halley was a person who lived in the world. He was creative, smart, funny, talented, and he had friends and family who loved him very much. This particular conversation (on the part of adherents only, not neutral editors like Will) has been the most stone-cold discussion I've yet read on Rawat-article talk pages. To give folks more perspective Pat Halley, please read Memorial Note Mike Neiswonger's memorial of Pat which gives a good explanation of how Pat's life was changed forever because of the murder attempt, as well as some background on the pieing. Scroll to bottom of the memorials for Mike's coments. Mahatama Fakiranand, a close underling of Prem Rawat, repeatedly hit Pat in the head with a hammer and left him for dead. I spoke with Pat a couple of times around seven years ago and he was still very afraid of anyone associated with Prem Rawat, including myself, even though I tried to reassure Pat that I was no longer associated with Rawat and deplored the attack. Pat went out of his way to describe how he still was in possession of books that had blood spatter on them from his attack. Just about a year ago last week Pat committed suicide. I trust what his friends have to say about Pat. Also, here is a short discussion about Pat by his friends Friends of Pat. Please show some respect and sensitivity while discussing this issue. Pat told me he regretted ever pieing Maharaji and he suffered so much for it for the rest of his life. Thank you. Sylviecyn (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, this incident is a typically American event that Americans find fascinating. US mainstream media may say this changed his followers, but why did they keep on growing until now then? US mainstream media is really something. Spain's tourist slogan used to be "Spain is different". I think it fits the US better. I wonder who was the person who first had the idea and passed it over perhaps to other lower ones in a chain until it got down to Pat Halley. It is not impossible that he was asked to do it, or ordered to do it or paid to do it. Mainstream media probably wanted that picture and they got it. That could happen anywhere, of course, but happened in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedrero (talk • contribs)

I'm not familiar with Spanish history sufficiently to know of similar incidents. But from reading the sources on this matter, I think that some writers were taken by the contradiction between the movement's philosophy of non-violence and the beatings administered by a senior follower. If a reporter threw a pie at the Pope and was then almost beaten to death by a cardinal I'm sure it would receive wide coverage in Spain. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Will you keep doing this thing of misquoting Prem Rawat or the DLM and then crying HYPOCRISY! It is most irresponsible. Where did you get the "movement's philosophy of non-violence"? Inner peace is not non-violence. I was a cadet military officer around that time, learning to attack with and defend against nuclear weapons, and I was a premie, too, going for inner peace as I still am. Fakiranand was not a "senior follower" he was just one of dozens of mahatmas, and IMO he was a certifiable lunatic. And all sources show that Prem Rawat abhorred this attack, and it is about time you acknowledged that. Rumiton (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

All I know is what I read. I don't think I've misquoted the sources that I'm thinking of. The article in The Realist includes an interview with another Mahatma in which he's asked about how the Vietnamese should respond to being bombed by U.S. B-52s. He said they should do nothing and just allow themselves to be bombed rather than fighting back. As for Fakiranand, we have sources that say he was the first mahatma personally chosen by Rawat, and that he was among the first to come to the U.S. If you have sources to the contrary please provide them, but don't say I'm wrong unless there is a evidence of it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Will, you said "All I know is what I read". And when you read two contradicting things how do you choose?--Pedrero (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia standard is that if there are two conflicting, reliable sources then we should report both. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Will, thanks for the answer. And excuse me if I have another one: Who decides if a source is reliable when there is no agreement? I am sure you know people with whom it is difficult or impossible to reach an agreement. What then? Do you know the answer or can you tell me where to find it? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedrero (talk • contribs) 22:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Look what I found: http://images.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://corridortribe.com/obits/pat_halley/Pat%2520Halley_boy%2520guru.jpg&imgrefurl=http://corridortribe.com/obits/pat_halley/pat_halley_boy_guru.htm&usg=__l3-zqfW48G69m2ueD0sgIcJTQgk=&h=900&w=900&sz=231&hl=de&start=141&tbnid=6qfbTth7v7tXKM:&tbnh=146&tbnw=146&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmaharaji%26start%3D140%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Dde%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:de:official%26sa%3DN I can't identify the newspaper, but it seems to be a piece of fresh and authentic reporting, just to get a clearer picture of what happened.--Rainer P. (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I know I don't count for anything but it seems to me there is something here. It's worthy of inclusion if there there was a close tie between Rawat and this person (afterall, what is Arthur without his Lancelot?) and then to put it into context you have to give some of the story. Pie-Guy, takes pie of shaving cream (harsher than pie cream), splats. Rawat's "guys" takes Pie-Guy's head and fractures it against Rawat's public statements. Rawat turns the guys into the police but police don't press charges. On it's face it doesn't seem notable enough for it's own article unless it changed public perception of Rawat or Rawat's or organizations behavior (i.e. a defining moment). Just sayin... -CáliKewlKid (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

From the start media attention and therefore public perception on Rawat was split between reasonable curiosity about a teenage guru and making fun of what they couldn't understand. My view is that the media (and the public) became increasingly hostile to Rawat after the widespread media claim that Rawat was arrested for smuggling and the absence of equal weight given to the Indian govt's apology. The media and the public was left believing Rawat was a smuggler. From then on the media veered towards ridiculing Rawat. Months before Halley hit Rawat his newspaper claimed "Guru Maharaj Ji, the famous 14-year-old guru, was just adjusting to his several million followers, a $120,000 home in England, a mansion in L.A., missions thru-out the world and a Rolls Royce, when he was busted. On November 6, the Perfect Master was caught trying to smuggle $80,000 in jewels, gold and watches into India. In India, smuggled gems and gold are sold to farmers who hoard them instead of investing in modern agriculture. It was also revealed by Indian leaders that the Great Savior is 22 years old, not 14 as he and his followers claim".Momento (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the multibillion weapon industry is about as happy to hear someone bringing peace to the world as the 600 billion pharma-industry would be if somene came up with a remedy to cure everybody. So I also suppose they got too paranoid when Prem came first to the west and their media did the rest, their paranoia has probably increased to see the ridiculed teenager speak at the House of Representatives and in some of the most respected institutions in he world.

When Prem came to the West for the first time, all newspapers had a picture with the teenage guru and “his” Rolls Royce.

Next day Prem wanted to go around London sightseeing, then they told him they did not have the car, they rented it just to bring him from the airport to the house a follower let him use, so he asked if anyone had a car, and then he went sightseeing in an old car with followers. That is not so interesting.

Many people are like a strainer, they let the good pass through and keep the bad, they see the reflection of their own minds. The only way to improve Prem’s article, if it is possible at all, is to take out all or most of the rubbish written by rubbish media and ignorants with university degrees and insert the only thing that brought Prem to the west and makes him a worldwide respected authority on inner peace in 2008: his teachings.

I doubt there is a more controversial article in Wikipedia, with some 39 archives of discussion each containing tens of thousands of words of arguments on the article, this is the most ridiculous thing I have seen in my life, and still half of Prem's "biography" or more is rather a tabloid on one of the most respected persons speaking at many respected institutions. This must have a reason, I suppose----Pedrero (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

APOLOGY FROM PEDRERO

I sincerely apologize for saying half of Prem's biography is a tabloid, I had not read the article again after the first time I read it months ago, when there were many more irrelevant and negaive comments, but after I have read it again I have seen a big improvement. I think it is a pity there are not more honest neutral people like the one or ones who have helped to make the big progress I have seen towards a biography like the rest. I made a mistake, sorry.

This means that I was also wrong to think that the reason why Prem's article was so negative is because Wikipedia is American. and the article would not really change until the US really changed, and the US has been changing, yes, but for the worse, and for long, sorry to tell you, because I was a fanatic pro-American in the sixties, when perhaps the US had the highest prestige in its history, and now it seems the lowest, thanks to the economical and political elites, despite the majority being nice people. It is not Americans that have changed for the worse of course, only the economic and political elites. But it is clear I had made another mistake. I'd better not write anything else. --Pedrero (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

CáliKewlKid, you're certainly most welcome to give your view, but it doesn't look like you've done your research first. To begin with, Halley said he used shaving cream to be less likely to stain Rawat's suit that a regular pie, not because it's harsher. (How harsh could it be? It's designed to be put on the face.) Second, the attackers were not turned over to police, despite warrants for their arrest. Just the opposite - the attackers fled across state lines and were kept at a DLM ashram. The Detroit police were never able to locate or arrest the men. As for your last point, it has indeed been described as changing the perception of Rawat and the movement. Other sources say that recruiting dropped off by later 1973, and yet other sources say that membership dropped after that or that it was the high point in the movement's history. So it and two other events in the following months (the Millennium '73 festival and Rawat's marriage) have indeed been depicted as defining moments in the history of the movement and the subject. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Chill Will, of course I didn't do my research, I was commenting on the merits of inclusion, not the subject. I just think shaving cream tastes worse than cream pie... that's all. I was also speaking informally. He named, names. Whatev. Obviously, you justified it and within that context it's important. Separately, too much of what you guys (the ppl most involved in the discussion tho not all) seem to be debating is "how the reader will perceive it?" -- seems like the wrong approach, seems like you should just put forth the most factual approach... but then again, you guys already know this cause your Wikipedia experts. Good luck on your own private war. This isn't a bio, it's a book. ;) - CáliKewlKid (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Since you are a "CaliforniaKewlKid," you ought to sit back and listen to your elders. And while you're at it, take a look at your cold, cold, heart. You remind me of the teenage characters in the movie "Rivers Edge" which I rewatched recently. Like you, they also lacked any empathy for other people, dead or alive. Pat Halley threw a pie in the face of Prem Rawat to make a political statement and that's part of Prem Rawat's life history, no matter how much his adherents want to airbrush those facts away. For doing that, Pat almost lost his life at the hands of one of Rawat's closest adherents and an agent of Divine Light Mission/Elan Vital, Mahatma Fakiranand. Nobody is blaming Prem Rawat for the actions of Fakiranand, but it's still part of Rawat's life history that adherents are so avidly trying to remove from this article. Btw, show some respect please, and if you're looking for a forum on which to have discussions, feel free to register and post there Prem Rawat Talk Forum. I post there as Cynthia, which is my real name. See ya there, cowboy.  :) :) Sylviecyn (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that last bit. Every time someone tries to cut it down to a reasonable length, someone else notices that something that supports their precious point of view has gone, and reverts it back to what you see now. (Then claims there is a consensus for it.) Rumiton (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"This isn't a bio, it's a book." I'm afraid I don't understand what that means. This article is a biography - everything in it concerns the life of a person. It isn't a book, unless one considers a 15-page document as a book. Regarding Rumiton's comment, that seems to describe the behavior of several editors here. If individual editors are a problem it might be better to leave notes on their talk pages. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Undiscussed deletions

I agree with Will's revert, and was just about to revert myself. We can't just jettison the entire scholarly reception. Cheers, Jayen466 12:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

[E/C] I reverted the deletion of the "Charisma and leadership" section.[13] Deleting neutral, sourced content can be tantamount to vandalism. Please make a reasonable attempt to discuss and get consensus for major changes to the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem -- it needed major pruning and hopefully oinly acrtually relevant stuff will get put in. And parts were literally unreadable. As for all the stuff being "neutral" -- I could not tell what it was saying, so there was no way for anyone to tell how neutral it was at all. Lastly AGF instead of making asides about "vandalism." Another editor might miscomprehend your point. Collect (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

May I ask: how many of these sources have you read? There appear to be cases where things are getting deleted because an editor isn't sure what the point is or whether the material is presented neutrally. None of the material in this article is irrelevant to Prem Rawat, so that's not a reason to delete anything. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 12:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Only a bit using Google book search. Enough to doubt the actual relevance of such stuff in a BLP to be sure. And where the material is incomprehensible to a college graduate, I suspect that it is incomprehensible to most other people. The article is, as I stated, a "camel" (a horse designed by a committee). Schnabel, for example, is in Dutch. WP guidelines state that English is the language of these articles, and that foreign lanhuage sources without translations should be avoided. So I did not read Schnabel, and I doubt many readers here did either. you did either. McGuire's text does not primarily deal with DLM, and is likely overused here. And so on -- the refs are primarily to the religion and not to the person. I trust the tweaks will be satisfactory. Collect (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Many of us have examined these sources extensively, so if you have a question please bring it here rather than just deleting material. There's no prohibition on using foreign-language sources, though when equally good sources are available in English those are preferred. Many sources, including the foreign language ones like Schnabel, are quoted in Talk:Prem Rawat/References. Those quotes were deleted from the footnoted because they were getting excessive. I don't understand what you mean by McGuire's text being "likely overused here". Many of the sources we use in this article are overviews of new religious movements. Are you suggesting deleting all of those that don't deal primarily with the DLM? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "overused" sources, perhaps the most egregious example is Hunt. His 676 words about the DLM are used as references 10 times in this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hunt is one of the most contemporary sources we have, and as such is not overused, rather, it is a source that has had the benefit of time and thus provides one of the most accurate and balanced summaries of PR and related topics. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hunt is only a year newer than McGuire. Does your statement apply to McGuire as well, or does a year make that much difference? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Nooope. McGuire is from 1981. There are 7 editions in all. you may have read the 2002 edition, but go and check the older editions and see that there is no much difference. [14]. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read it at all. It's not my citation. The fact that a reference doesn't need updating six years later doesn't seem like a major problem. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Math problem? It is actually 22 years difference between Hunt and McGuire's source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That could be, math was never my strongest subject.

• McGuire, Meredith B. (2002). Religion, the social context. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning. ISBN 0534541267 9780534541262.
• Hunt, Stephen (2003). Alternative religions : a sociological introduction. Aldershot, Hampshire, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate. ISBN 0754634094 9780754634096 0754634108 9780754634102.

To my poor brain, that looks like a one year difference, not 22. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You must have missed the bit where Jossi said it was essentially still the same text as in its first, 1981 edition. ;-) Jayen466 04:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did miss that part. Did Jossi compare the text or just suggest that others do so? I thought it was the latter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Charisma rewrite

How about this rewrite? It loses a stranded sentence sourced to Mcguire, and straightens out Schnabel a bit.

Melton refers to Rawat's personal charisma as one of the reasons for the rapid spread of his message among members of the 1960s counterculture. The Dutch sociologist Paul Schnabel described Rawat as a pure example of a charismatic leader. He characterized Rawat as materialistic, pampered and intellectually unremarkable compared to Osho, but no less charismatic. Schnabel remarks that although Rawat's charisma was originally a routinized form of charisma resulting from hereditary succession, this aspect played a negligible role in the Western context, where he saw Prem Rawat's charisma primarily as the result of careful staging supported by an entire organization dedicated to that purpose.

Lucy DuPertuis, a sociologist and follower who assisted James V. Downton with his book about the Divine Light Mission, described Rawat's role as a Master as emerging from three interrelated phenomena: traditional or theological definitions of Satguru, adherents' first-hand experiences of the Master, and communal accounts and discussions of the Master among devotees. Her ultimate assertion is that imputation of charisma is an active, conscious, changing process which, in this context, involves non-cognitive modes of perception. She also observed that Rawat's charisma did not prevent some devotees from discovering that they had learned the "experience of God" on their own, and to drift away, not in disillusionment but in fulfillment. Jayen466 12:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Still a "Huh?" section. Perhaps:

Rawat's personal charisma is cited by Melton as one of the reasons for the rapid spread of his movement in the 1960s counterculture. Dutch sociologist Paul Schnabel described Rawat as a pure example of a charismatic leader, as well as materialistic, pampered and intellectually unremarkable. He says that although Rawat's charisma was originally a routinized form of charisma from hereditary succession, this aspect was unimportant in the Western context. He said Rawat's charisma primarily was the result of careful staging supported by an entire organization dedicated to that purpose.

Lucy DuPertuis, a sociologist and follower who assisted James V. Downton with his book about the Divine Light Mission, described Rawat's role as a Master as emerging from three interrelated phenomena: traditional or theological definitions of Satguru, adherents' first-hand experiences of the Master, and communal accounts and discussions of the Master among devotees. She asserts that imputation of charisma is an active, conscious, changing process which involves non-cognitive modes of perception.

Retaining what appears to be possibly pertinent. Collect (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"..appears to be possibly pertinent" seems about right. One of the tests of pertinence that seems valid to me is to try to paraphrase a sentence. I can't do that with either of the above, in either Jayen's or your version. They are linguistic dead-ends, which to me says there is something wrong with them, either the original writing or the translation. Where can I find Tussen stigma en charisma: in the original to check it? It doesn't seem to be on the internet. Rumiton (talk) 12:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Some objected, and I still do not understand just what Schnabel is supposed to be saying, and my Dutch is very weak. So I left him in. Collect (talk) 13:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your Dutch is the problem. My German is fairly reasonable and the languages are not dissimilar, but I still can't understand what this translation is trying to say. Rumiton (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Looking at it again, the brain gets tangled trying to sort out what the author means by the word "charisma." The Oxford says, "Divinely conferred power or talent; capacity to inspire followers with devotion and enthusiasm." The German word is similar, and similarly positive in tone, but maybe it means something a bit different in Dutch, as what follows materialistic, pampered and intellectually unremarkable and stage-managed doesn't sit with charismatic at all. Bad sentences like this don't add to anyone's understanding of the subject, unless they can be radically rephrased. Anyone care to try again? Rumiton (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I combined material ascribed to him (mea culpa) -- I was not sure why the second sentence was there, nor how it directly related to Rawat and "charisma" but I figured whoever juxtaposed the material must have some sort of balancing intent of some sort. Collect (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That may be correct, but as it stands that part of the section is not earning its keep, especially with the words "pure example" of charisma. Instant confusion. If nobody can resolve this dilemma I suggest we remove the whole paragraph. Rumiton (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I often have a problem with Geaves as well, and there is no translation confusion there. He says Rawat could only be defined as charismatic in the sense of charisma having an antagonistic relationship with tradition. Huh? again. Rumiton (talk) 14:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Folks say we should use only scholars as sources, then complain when scholars write in a scholarly manner! Geaves, who is a longtime follower of Rawat, seems to be making a clear statement. As I see it, he's saying that the source of Rawat's charisma, such as it is, is his contradiction to traditional Indian and Western teachings and methods. That contradiction has been referred to frequently in both scholarly and journalistic sources, sources who noted his failure to follow the stereotype of an aged, ascetic guru, or his references to modern technology in his parables. (For quotes from sources, see Talk:Prem Rawat/References or the other subpages). 20:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Mm, got to agree with Will there. Don't worry, smart people will be able to understand it. ;-) Jokes aside, I think Collect's rewrite above is an improvement on my version, though I'd keep the last sentence of DuPertuis. Jayen466 22:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it becomes clearer when you read the context, which I have not done. (By the way, the such as it is above is not from Geaves, it is pure Will Beback.) So how do we paraphrase this to make his point clearer for the reader? Rumiton (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I can help with the Dutch. In any case no western scholar can understand nor describe a yogui beter than a yogui like Yogananda. Scholars said there are voluntary and involuntary muscles, but yoguis prove the opposite, they can control the heart rate and the breath. My heartbeat falls to half and my breath goes down from the usual 20 times/minute to 5 or 6 per minute after a few minutes, no matter how impossible doctors may think that is. Now the University of Rotterdam and others have made a bio-psychology research on meditation, and we have now EEG graphics and brain scan pictures, scientific proof, that meditators have more alfa waves, better concentration, react different than non-meditators and have better control over negative emotions than non-meditators. Their brains have sort of been "reprogrammed", not for the worse, as many say, but for the better.

The research in the Univ. Rotterdam was not with Prem's techniques, but Sadurshan Kriya or something like that. I imagine some curious researcher will sooner or later compare meditation techniques. What would happen if it turned out that Premies have the best scores? Where would we put all the negative comments by scholars on Prem Rawat? I do not know where you would put them, but I would use the paper basket. Western scholars haven't got a clue about the mind, can't cure mental sickness, some scientists are trying to create life, and as Prem said how can they create life if the don't even know what it is? It is all like a big joke. So much that sometimes I have to laught aloud. Pedrero (talk) 04:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

WP is not a theological reference - this article, for example, is designated as a "biography of a living person" and hence should conform in no small way to WP:BLP. Other articles, which are linked from this one, are better places for such discussions. Unfortunately, over time, the easy way out was to let Topsy (see Uncle Tom's Cabin)) govern the article -- adding something positive here, and something negative over there to "balance" it ... until the article got so big that no one would want to read it, or understand it either. Then I arrived with a nice blue pencil. Collect (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(Off-topic)Collect, are you sure you want to keep that "Topsy" comment here? Personally, I find it offensive, not so much to editors here (even though it is insulting to the collective work of many people here for almost five years), but to African-Americans. Gawd only knows what we would have done without your presence on these articles all this time!! :) Please retract or explain. Thanks! :):) Sylviecyn (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess Rodgers and Hammerstein should have removed it from "The King and I" as well ... WP says "The phrase "growed like Topsy" (later "grew like Topsy"; now somewhat archaic) passed into the English language, originally with the specific meaning of unplanned growth, later sometimes just meaning enormous growth." and does not call it offensive, nor do other sources call this character from a seminal anti-slavery book "offensive." Cite for the term being offensive? Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

And a very nice blue pencil it is. Please hover it over ...she asserts that imputation of charisma is an active, conscious, changing process which involves non-cognitive modes of perception. I can hear wailing and gnashing of teeth from the literary beyond. Do we need this? Do we really need it? Rumiton (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

And I'd like to see it go right through this ""Maharaj Ji's luxuries are gifts from a Western culture whose fruits are watches and Cadillacs," a spokesman explained. Some premies said that he did not want the gifts, but that people gave them out of their love for him. They saw Rawat's lifestyle as an example of a lila, or divine play, which held a mirror to the "money-crazed and contraption-collecting society" of the West.Momento (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

And add this to the Westernization section. "A Boeing 707 was acquired and Rawat flew the plane to South America, Europe, India, Nepal, Australia, New Zealand and Malaysia.. since aviation is a thread through this article with learning to fly, the purchase of Cessnas and flying jets already included. It's an interesting point and again shows the amount of travel Rawat does.Momento (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

We're discussing the "Charisma" section here. If you want to discuss the editing of other sections please start separate discussions for those. Most of the text in this article is the result of lengthy discussion and consensus, and should not be deleted on a whim. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In German (and possibly also in Dutch) the word and is often used where an English speaker would say but. Maybe this is part of the problem with the charismatic and materialistic, pampered and intellectually unremarkable. Perhaps if we change the first and to but.? I will do so and see how it looks. Rumiton (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Bromley is weird, too. David G. Bromley says it is difficult for a charismatic leader to prove himself to be above normal human failings, such as ill health or indulgence in worldly pursuits. He presents Rawat's marriage as such a situation, which is then exploited by the media to discredit charismatic claimants in the eyes of the general public. He is swerving from the general (a charismatic leader) to the particular (Rawat's marriage) then back again (charismatic claimants) in dizzying fashion. Academics are not always good communicators, and if we cannot paraphrase this garbage into intelligibility we need to get rid of it. Anyone willing to try? Rumiton (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Darn those scholarly scholars! We should use more journalists instead - they write more clearly. ;) I have no trouble understanding Bromley's point (maybe I hang around with scholars too much.) He's saying that charismatic leaders are supposed to be perfect, and when they act like imperfect humans, such as by getting married to a beautiful woman, then those imperfections are reported in the media to undermine the claims of charisma to the public. I think it's fine as it is. If it can be improived, then that's great, but there's no reason to delete it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting -- but historically "charismatic leaders" are flawed. Vide "Elmer Gantry" in fiction, and a bunch of real-life preachers. Vide JFK known as a womanizer. Vide Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Adolf Hitler, and a host of Islamic leaders. Charisma and virtue are not connected. Collect (talk) 11:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Quite true, Will, journalists are much better at explaining themselves. But I think you are mixing academic obliquity with journos' sloppiness in your paraphrase. What does "supposed to be perfect" mean? Supposed by whom? Is this the same as saying they "claim to be perfect"? Or are "supposed" to claim to be perfect? We need to nail this one. If the difficulty lies in meeting public expectations the article should say so clearly. Rumiton (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• More comments about edits to "Charisma..." section. It appears that in an attempt to make the section more comprehensible, editors -- in this case Collect and Rumiton -- have changed the meaning of scholarly writings. Paraphrasing well is a good thing, but rewrites that change the meaning is not good at all. Case in point is the reference to Lucy DuPertuis's article. First, what she says and what's written in the article are quite different as the article stands now, from the her paper that is quoted. The paper is entitled "How people recognize charisma: the case of darshan in Radhasoami and Divine Light Mission," Sociological Analysis, 47, Page 111-124. University of Guam. This paper is available on JSTOR and on Ex-premie.org, DuPertuis, pg. 47. Second, Dupertuis is not a "follower" but a "former follower" or "ex-premie." Third, what she writes about isn't really related to Downton's work, so the description of her by referencing Downton is misleading for purposes of the current paragraph. Folks, please try to be much more diligent when editing this article in order to avoid changing the entire meaning of a scholar's writing. I cannot stress this point enough. If the people don't like an author's wording as too academic, that's perfectly understandable, but that's an issue that can be dealt easily by working cooperatively here on the talk pages to do appropriate paraphrasing of the same on drafts that reach concensus prior to changing the wording on the article mainspace. As the DuPertuis section stands, it does not reflect her writing about Rawat and charisma, etc. I know folks' intentions are good, but let's not make this article into hash. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I kept this in the Rawat article:

Lucy DuPertuis, a sociologist at the time involved in the movement, described Rawat's role as a Master as emerging from three interrelated phenomena: traditional or theological definitions of Satguru, adherents' first-hand experiences of the Master, and communal accounts and discussions of the Master among devotees.

...further rewritten:

Lucy DuPertuis, a sociologist at the time involved in the movement, described Rawat's role as a Master as emerging from three interrelated phenomena: traditional or theological definitions of Satguru, adherents' first-hand experiences of the Master, and exchanges among devotees.

Based primarily on this excerpt of the "Discussion" section in DuPertuis' essay:

The three aspects of darshan discussed - of Satguru as Absolute, as living master, and within the community of devotees - suggest the imputation of charisma on three interrelated levels. The master in person emerged both theologically and experientially as neither the sole focus nor the unique generator of charisma.

1. Suggestions for improvement (I mean: saying that the summary doesn't very well reflect the original is one thing; producing an improved summary is another...)?
2. Source for DuPertuis' involvement in the movement at the time?

Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Francis. We arrived at the version we had before your edits, after a long effort by many editors through mediation. Sure, consensus can change, but please do look for and develop that consensus before doing such a massive edit. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The mediation discussion for this section can be found here: User_talk:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat/Proposal2, and the consensus of editors, here ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, I don't know why you're referring specifically to Francis's edits. The editing of this section was instigated by Collect and Jayen. I don't see how pointing to Francis is helpful. However I do support reverting back to the version agreed upon in mediaiton, pending a fresh consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

1. This article is about Rawat, not about sociological concepts: if the concepts aren't clear click the provided links
   • proposed --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
2. in-line source ("Melton") and ref ("Partridge (2004)") mismatch; unclear if "personal charisma" is Weberian here
   • proposed --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
3. removing general statement: this article is about Prem Rawat, not DuPertuis' general theories.
   • proposed --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
4. per talk page Talk:Prem Rawat#Charisma rewrite
   • proposed --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
5. both "hereditary succession" and "formalization" are discussed in these writings as manifestations of what sociologists call "routinization" (of charisma)
   • proposed --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
6. m seems nearer to source
   • proposed --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
7. m flow
   • proposed --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
8. flow; and trying to capture the sense of the source better
   • proposed --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
9. generalities -about NRM founders, about developments in sociological appraoch-, nothing specific about the subject of this article
   • proposed --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
10. not related to the topic of this section (reception of charisma and leadership)
    • proposed --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
11. m linked on first occurrence
    • proposed --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
12. re-sequenced for better flow; condensed Geaves material
    • proposed --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
13. m clarity of who said what
    • proposed --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
14. m style: uniformity of referring to the subject
    • proposed --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
15. m flow
    • proposed --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Francis, how can you think to omit Bhagwan from Schnabel's comparative description of Rawat which is "The intelligent, ever-changing Bhagwan who gives daily performances is not more a charismatic leader than the pampered materialistic and intellectually quite unremarkable Maharaj Ji"? And I've put it in alphabetical order. Using Webber as the means to order this section is an OR construction, it needs to be fixed. Momento (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Webber? I assume you mean Weber.

Re. Bhagwan: was removed before, I can't recall under what circumstances, anyway not the object of any of the 15 changes proposed above. I support the version without Bhagwan/Osho: this article is about Rawat, not Osho: the Osho article is the right place if you want to say something about Bhagwan based on Schnabel.

Alphabetical order: don't see the need for that: the three authors that mentioned Weber's classification of authority explicitly in the chapter/article where they discuss Rawat as a charismatic leader are grouped in the paragraph that starts with "Several scholars refer to Max Weber's classification of authority when describing Rawat as a charismatic leader". There's no OR involved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The OR is that someone decided that a charisma section should give people who mentioned Weber some sort of precedence in the structure. Why is that? Why not start the section with "Several scholars who were followers of Rawat described him as ......etc". And you can't have Schnabel comparing Bhagwan to Rawat without the description of Bahgwan, It's like saying "Rawat is tall" without including "compared to pygmies".Momento (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Weber is the premier authority on the issue of charismatic leadership. See Charismatic authority. It is logical to group together authors who discuss Weberian charisma as it applies to the subject. Grouping concepts by the first initial of the author's last name appears to an almost random arrangement. I can't see any value in it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is it logical? Charisma can be discussed without referring to Weber. I don't see Weber mentioned in Schnabel.Momento (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"Het is Max Weber geweest, die in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (1922) het begrip ‘charismatische Herrschaft’ introduceerde als een ideaaltype in contrast met de twee andere vormen van leiderschapsautoriteit, gezag of macht: ‘legale Herrschaft’ en ‘traditionelle Herrschaft’. Onder charisma verstaat Weber..." (bolding added - Schnabel p. 96, i.e. start of the subsection where Schnabel discusses Rawat as a charismatic leader) --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) That's not "OR", that's an editorial choice ("editorial discretion"), as in: give precedence to scholars. Scholars would most likely cite one of the "founding fathers" of sociology, notably the one that invented the concepts "charismatic leadership" and "routinization".

Re. "you can't":

• Don't make this personal, please, I'm not even sure if I was involved in the last removal of the Osho material (honestly I don't recall);
• Of course one can do this, it has been stable without the Osho material for some time, and I don't see why it shouldn't: it says something about Rawat with or without the one compared to, who has his own biographical article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Creating a section called "Charisma and leadership" is entirely arbitrary, it is not specific or unique to Rawat, and editors are then obliged/allowed to fill the section with material on "charisma and leadership". If the section was called "Leaders of NRMs" then Weber wouldn't appear. The headline determines the content that follows. A section called "Rawat and Jungian Psychology" would have different content to "Rawat and Freudian Psychology". Why limit the discussion of Rawat as a leader to Weber or give Weberian views more prominence. Why have a section on "Charisma and leadership" at all. You may as well have a section for "Dutch sources". If you want to talk about leadership, you should put iit in DLM.Momento (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If the idea is to make the article totally unreadable <g> then keep everyone's treatises in it. OTOH, I suspect that making the article readable is a laudable objective. Do we need a RfC on making the article readable at all? Collect (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Momento wrote:

• I think this is a well written section. Happy for it to be inserted into the PR article.Momento (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC) [15]

It's unhelpful to participate in a mediation, work together with other editors to reach a consensus, and then, six months later, question why this text is in the article. It's here because Momento, Jossi, Francis, and Rumiton agreed on it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The text we agreed on (Prop 3) said "The Dutch sociologist Paul Schnabel described Rawat as a pure example of a charismatic leader. He characterized Rawat as materialistic, pampered and intellectually unremarkable compared to Osho, but no less charismatic". Will you change it or will I?Momento (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Is that the only dispute about the version that Francis is discussing? From the comments above I though the entire section was being challenged. I suggest that the two of you work it out here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Bromley

The editor that deleted Bromley, should read that book, in particular pages 33 to 36. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the version from mediation, pending a fresh consensus. This edit warring is unhelpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The entire section of a thousand (figuratively, of course) viewpoints on Rawat proves? I would suggest that four succinct views would be more than enough, the rest is Ossa on Pelion. Collect (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That material was agreed upon by four of the editors here. A rare agreement, I might add. Would you mind seeking agreement before significantly altering the material that had a consensus? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The "consensus" has been superceded clearly by a consensus to remove material which no longer belongs in this article. This section had been edited with no apparent complaints down from its formerly bloated size. There were, indeed, minor quibbles about translations from Dutch and the like, but nothing which warrants abandonment of the constructive edits which had taken place. Now as to what I propose -- choose 4 exemplars for this section representing the primary points of view, and stick to that. Right now this section is the proverbial "horse designed by a committee" which ill-serves anyone. And with each exemplar being used for a succinct quote about Rawat or charisma or whatever, the section might even be readable someday. Collect (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with the particulars of your edit. I'm just pointing out that the material was stable until this recent flurry of editing, and now it's the focus of edit warring. You make good points and I'm sure you'll be able to get a consensus. But please do so before making the edit. Maybe we should work on this in a sandbox? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No sign of editwarring -- but then again what I have seen makes this article look calm and sedate, probably in a deep meditative trance <g>. I have removed a lot of puff now, and the next step is finding out which four "experts" matter. That gives each side 3 <g>. Collect (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin is not a standard by which to judge other articles. ;) Again, I'm not arguing about the contents of this section, which I've never paid much attention to anyway. My own opinion is that in a section like this we should focus on ideas and concepts, not individual scholars. But until there's a new consensus for Collect's version, or Jayen's version, or Francis' version, I think we should leave it at the last version that did have consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The whole section is overkill. The average reader doesn't want or need a 25 year old analysis of what type of "Weberian charisma" Rawat does or doesn't have. And if they do they can do their own research. I think the only reason it was created was to allow Schnabel to characterize Rawat as "materialistic, pampered and intellectually unremarkable". We don't need it.Momento (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You were "happy" to have it inserted into the article during mediation. Anyway, if everyone can find a new consensus then that's fine. Until then we should retain the version endorsed by Momento, Jossi, Rumiton, and Frances. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy every time this article improves and it will improve without this "Charisma" section.Momento (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Get a consensus for it and there won't be a problem. Meantime I'm going to restore the last version that had a consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like you are the one insisting on the old long and unreadable version. WTH ... the current version is at least a bit shorter Collect (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

And other editors are insisting on versions that others don't agree to. At least the longer version had a consensus. I'm not in favor of any version, but I'm against constant changing without agreement among editors, if we had a version that did achieve consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I never agreed to anything being carved in stone and have always considered this section to be an incoherent garbage heap. At least 4 editors were working to improve it and it was starting (with little, baby steps) to make sense, when it suddenly got reverted, with the explanation "This is what we all agreed on." If no better justification is forthcoming I will revert it back towards coherency again. Rumiton (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote above, the editors working on the section were editing the current text, which as it stood, was already a paraphrase of the scholars. In order to do a rewrite, it's incumbent, imo, upon those interested editors to go back to the scholarly writings and rewrite from there. Otherwise, the intent and meaning of the scholarly writings has been changed too much and context/meaning thereof gets lost. Btw, I don't find the section incomprehensible. I think the editors must learn to trust the readers more. Additionally, I object to the "Charisma" section being deleted because the subjects "charisma and leadership" are very important aspects (at least the scholars think so!) of a NRM leader. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Btw, a good example of changing the meaning of a scholar is how you rewrote the section describing Weber's explanation of charismatic authority. You left out the essential distinction Weber makes that defines charismatic authority. See diff of your edit. This is what you omitted: []...he distinguished it from the other forms of authority by stating "Men do not obey him [the charismatic ruler] by virtue of tradition or statute, but because they believe in him."[2] This form of authority can be seen in populist dictatorships where one individual exerts control by virtue of their personal popularity and following...[] Tripartite classification of authority. See what I mean? It's vitally important to get this section right and not play around edits made that do reflect the writings of these scholars, just for the purpose of shortening the article. Therefore, I'm once again objecting strongly to anymore rewrites of "Charisma..." without prior concensus here. Weber's writings on charismatic leadership does apply to Rawat and most other NRM leaders, in spades, and there's plenty of scholarly writing to back this up. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Me? Did I do that? The diff you quote says otherwise. It was Francis that shortened it. Anyway, the point remains, if you have some insight into what Weber and DuPertuis meant when they wrote such stuff then please share it with us. Particularly the latter, with her "three interrelated phenomena" and so forth. It may add to the reader's understanding if it can be presented in normal and grammatical English, but first we need to understand WTF she was talking about. If, indeed, anything. Rumiton (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC) If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. Albert Einstein. Rumiton (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Worse off

This section now reads as a disjointed list of opinions, and worse than the original version worked through mediation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No doubt about it. I think the question is Whose charisma and leadership are we talking about? If it is about Prem Rawat, then we have some chance of producing something coherent. If we are talking about charisma and leadership in general and making vague insinuations about him, then we should not be. Is this agreed? Rumiton (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Re. "If we are talking about charisma and leadership in general ..., then we should not be.": Precisely, that is why

, which is described as as type of leadership rests "on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him."

should go. The Rawat bio is not the place to expound on Weberian theories in general, only what scholars wrote about Rawat, referring to these theories (for further explanation of the theories themselves: click on the bluelinks). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Readers shouldn't have to consult text books to understand what is being said. The whole charisma section is an expert field and doesn't belong in this BLP.Momento (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It is reasonably to link to other Wikipedia articles that cover complex topics in greater detail, rather than explaining everything here. There is a fine article on Weber's theory of charismatic leadership, so linking to it is sufficient. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Will and Francis. It's not necessary to include the entire explanation of Weber's Tripartite Classification of Authority, when there's already an entire article in Wiki about it. The bonus to this article is that just linking it reduces the length of the section, which is what Rumiton and Momento have been arguing for here. I'm so gosh-darned reasonable today! Take it while it's hot! :) :) Sylviecyn (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

What aprox. percentage of biographies have a charisma section? That is what we need to know first. I wish there was an easy way to find out.--Pedrero (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Every biography is different. For example, WP has thousands of biographies of professional baseball players, and those typically include their batting statistics. Yet this article doesn't make any mention of Rawat's runs batted in. The reason that this article has a section on leadership and charisma is that many scholars have written on that topic. Similar issues are covered in biographies of other leaders of spiritual movements. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Images

WP:MOS#Images says:

• Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this can sometimes disconnect the heading from the text that follows it. This can often be avoided by shifting left-aligned images down a paragraph or two.
• Generally, you should use the thumbnail option ("thumb"), which is available in the image markup. This results in a default width of 180 pixels (140 pixels if the "upright" option is used as well), although logged-in users can set a different default in their user preferences. As a rule, images should not be forced to a fixed size (i.e. one that overrides the default).

When I modified the article to meet these guidelines,[16] the edit was reverted. Explanation? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Because another guideline (which I will look for if this is not self-evident) says that images should alternate left and right on the page, and portraits should in general be placed so that the face looks towards the text. What you have done, with all the images lined up on the right side, facing all directions, looks like crap. (IMHO) Rumiton (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

They can be on the left, but they just shouldn't be directly under the heading. I did keep one of the images on the left, and moved it down. If that was your only concern you didn't need to have reverted the whole edit. That's not helpful. You referenced the MOS in your edit summary, but I don't know which part you were referring to. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It just took me 35 laborious minutes to revert all the images one by one. You might notice that where you deleted the size forcing, the images shrank almost out of sight. That was not helpful. MOS says:

Examples where size-forcing may be appropriate include:

Images with aspect ratios that are extreme or that otherwise distort or obscure the image.

Detailed maps, diagrams, or charts.

Images containing a lot of detail, if the detail is important to the article.

Human faces are important, it seems to me, and should be recognizable as such. I hope you agree it looks better now. Rumiton (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry it took you so long. Maybe there's something wrong with Wikipedia, or your browser of connection. No, I don't think those images need to be bigger. Remember, anyone can simply click on the pictures to see a larger version. If we want to show that he's speaking to large audiences, then they're fine at the default size. If we want to show him better as an individual, then we should crop the photos and then use them at the default size. Either way, there's no need to hardcode the size. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree, and I think you are disagreeing with the Manual of Style. Showing tiny, blurred pictures of detailed subjects can not improve any article. Rumiton (talk) 04:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It's your responsibility to justify the forcing the image size, as non-forced sizes are the standard. What details in the photos are important to the article? Are we expected to recognize people in the audience? What is the purpose of the photos anyway? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see the justification for the hard coding the images. If there's no more response I'll remove them, per the manual of style. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The justification is that nothing could be seen in the photos in their shrunk versions, just a few lonely pixels swimming about. Does that strike you as desirable? I don't believe this needs discussion. The Manual of Style is quite specific. Rumiton (talk) 11:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

What details do we want readers to be able to see easily? Even at the default size it's obvious that it's an audience in the Albert Hall. We can crop it down closer to the subject if he's what we want readers to see. He's tiny in the Salamanca picture, even at the larger size - what we mostly see is the backs of heads, the back wall, and a chandelier. So what do we want readers to be able to see? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is obvious in the pixel-limited version. The eye can't pick any details out, so it wanders elsewhere. These pictures add interest and verification to the text. Some people take in information better when it is presented visually. But there are better and more interesting photos available, such as a couple of him speaking to audiences of 500,000 in India. Maybe one of these would be better. Rumiton (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what details in these photos are important. In both cases it's obvious that the subject is peaking to audiences. If it were an audience of 500,000 would we expect to see individual faces? What would be the point. If there are no details in the pictures that the readers need to see then there's no justification for blowing up the pictures beyond the default size. These aren't maps or diagrams, and the details aren't important to the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What pictures would you consider helpful? Only graphs and statistics perhaps? Using that standard you could remove most of the photos on Wikipedia. Pictures add to the feel and flavour of an article. They help the reader to make up their own mind about the subject. And they speak to the non-verbal reader in a way that paragraphs cannot. They are important, and need to be clear. Rumiton (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

WP once had scads of images. Then the rules were changed substantially, meaning almost as many images now get deleted as added. Were I to speculate, I might guess that EU and US rules on copyright have changed, and the foundation would not want to run afoul of any lawsuits. Collect (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

<- I'm not saying that the pictures aren't nice. I'm saying that they're fine at the default setting. Rumiton says they have to be larger to show details. I'm asking what details in the photos are importat to the article, the standard set by MOS. So far I don't think I've seen any response to that specific question. The audience members in the Albert Hall picture are blurry blobs regardless of how much we enlarge it. Rawat is blurry in the Salamanca picture no matter how large we make it. Both pictures unfortunately include large amounts of empty space, the stage or a wall. If we knew what which details were important we could crop them down to show those details better. If I don't hear any specific response I'll upload cropped versions. As for the larger question of what pictures would be helpful, photos of one of the 1970s festivals and of his wife and family would be more informative than two similar pictures from roughly the same time era. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A specific response is found in the Manual of Style. Delimiting photo size is appropriate when images contain a lot of detail, if the detail is important to the article, and for images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image. The Salamanca photo comes into that category. The wall behind the speaker demonstrates that it is a university setting, and gives weight to the text. Any cropping would "reduce the coherence of the image." I will also look around for alternate images. For obvious reasons, Wikipedia discourages photos of wives and families. Rumiton (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Surely we can all agree that photos should not be cropped. The photographer is the expert. Size depends on the environment. Photos should be the size that makes for the most attractive page view.Momento (talk) 11:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That would seem self-evident. I doubt that anyone could argue that the left image makes a worse article. Perhaps the problem might be that the larger image shows that Prem Rawat is smiling and looking good-humored, which contradicts the POV of certain editors. But perhaps that is unfair. Maybe this is all about complying with the Manual of Style after all. And the expression on his face is clear to see, which reinforces the text.

October 12, 1981. Prem Rawat speaking at the Royal Albert Hall, London

October 12, 1981. Prem Rawat speaking at the Royal Albert Hall, London

Rumiton (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

cropped

If the expression on the face is the detail we want to show, then this cropped version shows it even better at the default size than the original version did blown up. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The expression is one thing, the coherence of the image is the other. That's the audience, which is mostly missing when it gets cropped. Why does this need to be such a big deal? Rumiton (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC) Your cropped version shows the subject at the same size as the expanded version, you just managed to make him look like he was talking to almost no one. Rumiton (talk) 05:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

"Almost no one"? Even cropped it still looks like a full house. The uncropped photo doesn't show the entire audience either, so it's just a matter of degree. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This is one issue about which I'm neutral. (Let's have a party, drinks on me!!) The photos are fine larger or smaller and I think there are more important issues to resolve on this article other than the size of the photos. Either way is okay, imo. Sylviecyn (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The cropped version is aceptable to me, though I still think the original gave a better idea of the size of the audience. I am looking for a public domain version of one of the recent Indian photos showing portions of the audience which I am told totalled around 500,000. I agree the baldachin could be shortend in the lower pic, and perhaps the speaker and audience expanded. If anyone wants to try, let's see what happens. Rumiton (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and replace the Albert Hall pic with the cropped version that shows the subject better. Then which details in the Salamanca picture are important. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Schnabel and other sources

From Wikipedia:RS#Scholarship:

Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred to provide proper context, where available.

I would argue that Schnabel PhD dissertation falls within this category and should be evaluated for suitability.

I would also argue, that some of the press sources used in this and other articles should be evaluated against the criteria set at Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations, as some may fail it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't beleive that we cite any studies in this article. Schnabel's dissertation doesn't appear to be a scientific study in the sense usually meant. I'm not sure what you mean about the news sources. Can you be more specific please? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Schnabel dissertation may be an isolated study, is not cited as far as I can gather, and was only published in the context of being a dissertation; Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred to provide proper context, where available. As for the press articles, many of these used in several articles, may not meet the standards of reliability expressed in the guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

How is it a study at all? "Study" in this context, is more or less synonymous with "experiment" [or "survey"]. As for the news articles, please specify which you are referring to. Just saying that "many... may not meet the standards" is useless. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of having 30 year old analysis of a teenager/in their 20s? I'm sure we could find an "?Astrology Today" yearbook with Rawat in it.Momento (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

We have articles on James Dean and Wolfgang Mozart, both of whom were famous for their activities in their youth. Guru Maharaj Ji's following was called the fastest growing religious movement in the West when he was a teenager. Prem Rawat rarely gets mentioned outside of press releases. That's why we devote space to the most notable part of the subject's life. But I don't understand what any of that has to do with this thread. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

And do they have a Wberian Chrisma section?Momento (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably not, but this article doens't mention the subject's acting roles or symphonies. Everybody is different. We're here to summarize reliable sources. If they engage in sociological analyses then that's what we should summarize here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because someone wrote something doesn't mean we should include it. If that were the case, and we allocated similar space to all RS, then we'd need to summarize all of Downton, down to about 20 pages.Momento (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that really helps us write this article. WP:NPOV requires that we include the full range of viewpoints on a topic without endorsing any of them. I don't see any special problem with including Schnabel, and you endorsed the mediation version that included Schnabel back in the summer. Endless fights over the same topic, especially after they've been resolved once already, is unproductive. If length is a problem we can spin off this material into a separate article, something like "Popular and scholarly views of Prem Rawat", or whatever. Meantime, if folks insist on rewriting the already agreed upon text, I suggest that we create a sandbox for the purpose. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

We've got a full range of view points in a section on charisma, a section on "Media" but no section on "Followers observations" from Galanter and Downton. I'll see about integrating the material in the article.Momento (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That'd probably be best in a section of its own. I'd recommend posting your draft here first to get consensus. There are many reliable sources on the views of current and former followers, so it could end up being a long section. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

In addition to Galanter and Downton, the views of followers are also covered in Janet Liebman Jacob 1989, Robert Greenfield 1975, Melton 1986, Derks and van der Lans 1983, Bromley and Shupe 1981, Conway and Siegelman 1978, Enroth 1977, Messer 1989, Larson 1982, Levine 1989, Richardson 1978, Rudin and Rudin 1980, Saliba 1980, Stoner and Parke 1977. There are first person accounts in Collier 1978, plus a number of others sources. First person views expressed at the Millennium festival are collected at Talk:Millennium '73/sources. We could probably fill an entire article just with the views of followers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

References (please keep this section at the bottom of the page)

I gather from 'The Register' that Jossi Fresco a supporter of Mr Gee and his cult is no longer with Wikipedia:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/09/fresco_retires_from_wikipedia/

Does this mean that there can now be some honest material about the cult and it's leader, warts and all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.223.60.60 (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Undiscussed deletions 2

This is a mature article and every paragraph is the result of discussion and consensus. It's unhelpful for editors to just delete stable, sourced material without any prior discussion. I reverted one recent set of deletions,[17] and I expect that the material won't be changed again without consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Does any object to removing the text in bold, which I believe is irrelevant and therefore redundant to the incident which is a suitcase was seized, DLM/Rawat investigated, no charges laid and govt apologizes.

"On arrival, Indian customs impounded a suitcase containing cash, jewelry and wristwatches worth between US$27,000 and $80,000 which they said had not been properly declared.Rawat said, "It has nothing to do with me, it is an attempt to harm the Divine Light Mission. When someone grows, others get jealous of him, and the Divine Light Mission has just blasted like an atomic bomb all over the world.” A DLM spokesman said that the money had been pooled by 3,000 followers to cover expenses, and that the valuables were gifts. The finances of Rawat and the DLM in India and overseas were investigated by the Indian government. In June, 1973 while the investigation was still under way, Rawat had to post a $13,300 bond before he could leave the country. Charges were never filed, and the Indian government issued an apology.

Thanks.Momento (talk) 05:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I object to part of that deletion. Although no charges were laid, the matter is nonetheless notable and significant. Notable because it was widely noted. Both scholars and journalists have reported on this incident. Rawat's travel schedule was interrupted when he couldn't leave the country for six months, the matter was discussed in Parliament and PM Gandhi took an interest in the case. Rawat's own PR team identified it as one of the things for which he was best known. So the overall matter was significant. As for the details highlighted above, the estimates of values give the matter necessary context. Momento is the editor who added, five weeks ago, the quotation "It has nothing to do with me, it is an attempt to harm the Divine Light Mission. When someone grows, others get jealous of him, and the Divine Light Mission has just blasted like an atomic bomb all over the world.”. [18] I don't think it's necessary and if he now wants to delete it don't object. In fact, I think it's a good idea. But please keep the rest. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I find PR's quote the most (and possibly the only) interesting thing about this incident, as presumably also did the newspaper that published it. What it adds to the otherwise rather uninteresting report is a great illustration of the optimism, confidence and enthusiasm of the young, relatively naive Maharaj Ji and a glimpse of his actual views about what happened, namely that his mission had survived an attack from jealous opponents. What a great image...and how true... all premies shared his assurance that the Truth was now 'blasting like an atomic bomb all over the world'. The potent 'atomic bomb' image graphically tells readers just how powerful he felt when faced with such 'attempts'. I don't see the value in removing all the first-hand colour from PR's history all the time like this. The only argument Momento presents for the excision of the quote is that it is 'irrelevant and redundant to the incident' but I beg to disagree. I fear that without such quotes this article will further devolve into a drab sea of long fought over, highly selective facts. Therefore I vote for the quote to stay!80.4.202.68 (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's a mystery what newspaper published this. The citation says "THE TIMES SATURDAY NOVEMBER 19 1972". However there's nothing in the archive of the Times of London for that day about Maharaj Ji. Could Momento please provide a more detailed citation? Which Times is this? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

80.4.202.68 you are welcome here. You might like to log in with a username so we can communicate better. Will, I think the only person who considers this article mature and consensed right now might be you. To me it has a long, long way to go and needs considerable further shortening, before it reaches that hallowed point. Rumiton (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Almost every paragraph in this article is the result of long discussion. The article is not undergoing major shifts. So yes, I do think it's mature and consensed. Rumiton doesn't explain why he wants the article shorter; it's a reasonable length now. We could spin off the leadership or reception sections, if desired, but we'd still need to leave summaries. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is shorter and better now. After Collect's fine blue pencil-work it has gone from morbid obesity to mere flabbiness. I shall continue to remove repetitions and trivialities as I see them and to hope that no-one else adds any more fluff. The Leadership section still reads like an argument between drunken undergraduate sociologists. Rumiton (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss any significnat changes before making them. As for the Leadership section, you wrote it along with Jossi, Momento, and Frances. All four of you agreed to it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you please stop saying that? I wrote none of it, I tried to edit it to make it clearer but failed, as the meanings of the original writers were never clear in the first place. This section is an unnecessary hodge-podge that adds nothing of value to the article. I never agreed to it before and don't now. And removing an accidentally duplicated sentence is like taking out a comma. Demanding it be discussed beforehand seems like pedantry. Rumiton (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, you're right, you weren't one of the drafters. You did agree to the material, but with the objection that you don't like any sociologists. In any case, it achieved a consensus of editors including you, Jossi, Momento, and Frances. We should respect that consensus until a new one is formed. I'm not "demanding" discussion before fixing obvious errors, I'm asking for discussion prior to any significant changes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This is all I have (the noting of the currency in pounds suggests it's the The Times of the UK) but there's also "Nov 15, 1972 - ... just blasted like an atomic bomb all over the world. The mission claims a ing of 5 million in this country and nearly in the United States in...From European Stars And Stripes (Newspaper) - November... - European Stars And Stripes ($$)

8 THE TIMES SATURDAY NOVEMBER 19 1972

India investigates guru's finances Delhi, Nov 13.-The Indian Government is investigating a religious movement headed by a 14-year-old guru who is India's latest spiritual export to the West, authoritative sources said today. The sources said Mrs Gandhi, the Indian Prime Minister, has taken a personal interest, in her capacity as head of all intelligence agencies, in the controversy over Guru Maharaj Ji, known to his devotees as “Lord of the Universe”, "Prince of Peace" and "The Perfect Master." One senior member of the Government said that Indian diplomatic missions in countries where the guru's Divine Light Mission operates, including the United States and Britain, have been asked to investigate financial aspects of the movement. The Government, he said, wants to determine whether the mission is violating Indian law, particularly regarding restrictions on Indian nationals having bank accounts and capital assets abroad. The controversy began when the guru returned to India last Tuesday in a jumbo jet filled with 350 American disciples, and a suitcase containing an officially estimated $65,000 (about £27,000) in money, watches and jewels. The customs impounded the suitcase while the investigation was going on. Mr Arthur Brigham, from Denver, Colorado, director of the movement's large public relations division, said the money was to be used for meeting the local travel and food expenses of about 3,000 Western devotees, mostly from the United States, who came to India in seven chartered Boeing 747s to meditate. In an interview, the guru denied any personal connexion with the suitcase. When he went through the customs at Delhi airport he told the inspectors He had nothing to declare. "It was nothing to do with me", he said of the controversy. "It is an attempt to harm the Divine Light Mission. When someone grows, others get jealous of him, and the Divine Light Mission has just blasted like an atomic bomb all over the world.” The mission claims a following of five million in India and nearly 40,000 in the United States, 10,000 in Europe, 6,000 in Britain and 600 in Japan. A high Government source said it was unlikely there would be any prosecution of the guru. But he said the Government was concerned about the growing financial resources of the Divine Light Mission abroad. Mr Brigham, however, said all money received by the mission had come from private donations. - AP.Momento (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Where did you find this info? That might shed some light on the matter. As I mentioned, it doesn't appear in the archives of the Times of London. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

From the source of all good things [[19]]. There is also an article that suggests that the Indian customs were tipped off from the US and that religious leaders met and declared Rawat was 22.Momento (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, www.ex-premie.org. Yes, that is a very useful source for research materials. I'll email the webmaster to ask if he has any additional info on that article. Should we add anything about the age disputes? They seem to have come up repeatedly. Even the judge who granted permission to marry said he thought the subject seemed older. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

hey guys, long time no see. Will, I'm guessing that "The Times" here would likely be the Times of India. Unfortunately, their online search tool extends back only to 2001, but perhaps someone has access to older archives.Msalt (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

My point is that when the article relies on scholars' views it is succinct. When it relies on the media it is fat with trivia. In this case, the value is disputed, if what Rawat says is interesting, why limit ourselves to just a few quotes, the DLM spokesman is irrelevant. Why not leave the important facts and jettison the rest?Momento (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. You added the "atomic bomb" quote, then you deleted it and said it was irrelevant and redundant, now you say it's interesting. I'm confused - do you want to keep the quotation or delete it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

As the article improves (shortens), material that was previously OK becomes unnecessary and should be deleted.Momento (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Do we need still the NPOV tag in this article? I see discussions here related to improvements but that can be dealt in the normal editing process. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The NPOV tag and "normal" editing aren't exclusive. Anyway, Francis added it so he's the one to ask. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not see him participating much, and if there are any remaining POV issues these can be presented and discussed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Many folks are busy during the holiday season. If there are still POV issues the tag can be restored. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting-looking Italian article

My Italian is too basic to make much headway but maybe someone else can tell us what this is about? [[20]] Rumiton (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Google translates the title as "Agrigento: pacifist Maharaji guest of honor at Almond Flower Festival".[21] So it appears to be another "keys to the city"-type event. Per discussions here, Rawat is not a pacifist, so that's either an error or a mistranslation. The text appears to use the formula "Prem Rawat, also known as Maharaji," which is standard in Rawat's press releases. What about it looks interesting? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I could have used an on-line translator myself, but people who have worked in the field know that they are useless for anything beyond nursery rhymes. Can any Italian speaker help us with some insight into this article? Rumiton (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

"The Spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak" - into Russian and back became "The wine's ok, but the meat is spoiled." (anecdotal) I am unsure as to the wisdom of using any foreign language sources in any BLPs at all -- minor nuances once lost can not be regained. I think "pacifista" translates better as "peace-loving" than as "pacifist" with its political overtones. Collect (talk) 13:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Wikifriends, if this may help, in Spanish "pacifista" is a political term, "pacífico" is rather peaceful than pacifist, Spaniards called the Pacific Ocean pacific when they saw it first on a peaceful day on the beach, I am sure when they had to cross it through a storm they thought about the name. In Italian I suppose it is the same. I agree with Rumiton (this time not because we are both premies, but because we are both translators) that it is risky to use foreign languages when it is virtually impossible to know even your mother tongue completely. I have another translator's joke about semantics.

A man booked a "spiritual holiday" with a travel agency of alternative holidays, when he got there he saw everybody drunk, asked where was the spiritual holiday and they said: "Of course this is a spiritual holiday, we are drinking spirits." The reason why I like this joke is probably because I made it up.

A little humor from time to time will give this discussion page a better atmosphere. We may create an International Prem's Discussion Page Humor Award for the editor with the best humor. Ironic jokes admitted only if in mild forms.

If it may also help in the subject, Yogananda says it is an obligation to love your country and that someone who does not love his country cannot love God, but countries should not attack others. It is legitimate and morally compulsory to resist and fight injustice, and to defend one's country from outer attack and to participate in "just wars", but he admits this may be difficult to know in certain cases, and in case of doubt reccommends to consult a wise and respected guru. So this seems to agree more with peaceful than with pacifist.

This seems to be the traditinal yoga doctrine, and everything I have heard Prem say along many years is classical yoga doctrine, but in a simple vocabulary that even a child may understand. Some "scholar" calls it therefore "banal" in Prem's biography, perhaps he finds children banal and/or anything not in expressed in sophisticated intellectual or technical jargon, we do not know his definition of "banal". He should explain in 2008 why a banal message has had an increasing audience of intellectuals ever since he said that. But he was not a prophet, only an intellectual. Prem's joke about intellectuals: "An intellectual is a person who always thinks he is right and the other guy is wrong, even when the other guy says the same". I like it a lot. Of course there are humble intellectuals too, it is only a joke.

I have never heard Prem say anything about politics, except that the problem is not politics itself, but how it is carried out. I am pleased to take the opportunity to wish YOU all Merry Xmas and a prosperous, best ever year 2009.--Pedrero (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC).

I don't see anything noteworthy about one Italian newspaper -- whose background is not known -- calling Rawat a peacemaker, even if that is a correct translation (which is not certain). Can any one explain how that is not simple promotion of Rawat? Imagine if the Elie Wiesel page listed every time he was called something positive like that. It would be 500 megabytes in length. I'm inclined to remove that line.Msalt (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be notable, just verifiable. If you want to shorten the article I suggest you start with the numerous sentences about money in the "Coming of age" section. It's way over the top.Momento (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal physician

I have always wondered about this. No doubt reputable sources say so, but it seems a strange thing to me for a private doctor to go public in this way with his patient's medical history. Rumiton (talk) 11:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

What part of this subject's life isn't unusual? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 13:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The physician may still be active. I see this from 18 months ago: "A Message of Peace: The Wisdom of Prem Rawat - Guest Speaker: Dr. John Horton". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 13:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are many aspects of Prem Rawat's life that lie far outside the norm, but this example still makes me uncomfortable. I checked, and confidentiality is not just advisable for practitioners, it is mandatory. See [[22]]. If Prem Rawat was the victim of indiscreet public statements by his physician, then Wikipedia should not perpetuate this. Rumiton (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You're assuming that he talked to the press without the knowledge or approval of his patient. We have no evidence of that. It's more logical to assume that he was acting as a spokesman. Regardless, the diagnosis has been so thoroughly publicized that it's a part of the subject's life story. It's not our job to suppress widely reported information. Our job is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.   Will Beback  talk  18:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It may appear "more logical" that he was a spokesman, but it's still an assumption. On the face of it he released his opinion on his patient's state of health in defiance of medical etiquette. I can't think of any reason why PR (or anyone else) would want information like that released. He did not cancel any speaking engagements because of health problems. Anyway, there are more important areas to look at in this article. Rumiton (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Rumiton, ther is a properly sourced reference for this point. IMHO, it's up to you to show evidence that it's not proper, or it should stay. Others have provided substantial evidence that Horton remains an authorized spokesman for Rawat.Msalt (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a source for Rawat cancelling two engagements, one in Atlanta and one on the Dick Cavett Show, in the month between the Detroit incident and the hospitalization. It doesn't say why the events were canceled, though.   Will Beback  talk  17:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Rumiton, there are plenty of times when celebrities give permission to their doctors to release information to the press about their health status when they are hospitalized. They do this in order to stop the press's rumor mill from speculating about their health. My guess is that the press knew Rawat was admitted to a hospital, (easy to find that out) so Dr. Horton spoke to the press with permission. Btw, Dr. Horton was also the doctor to the ashram premies when a couple hundred of us (DECA, DLM full-timers, and many instructors/mahatmas) lived in the Broadripple Hotel Ashram (Dr. Horton lived there too) during the B707 project in 1979-81ish. I got to know Dr. Horton at the time because I saw him for some of my own medical issues back them. He was a always an honorable professional, based on my assessments then. I don't think Dr. Horton would have said anything to the press without Maharaji's explicit permission. In fact, it's illegal for any any American doctor to disclose personal medical information without their patient's permission, and I can't imagine John Horton doing that. It's legally confidential information second only to a lawyer/client privilege. I hope this assuages your concerns. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You are probably right, I don't see it as a big deal. Glad you had a good interaction with the doctor. Rumiton (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

EPO link

Wikipedia article links must meet the same standards as the sources we use. The site you are trying to link to is self-published and anonymous, and appears to exist only to denigrate the subject of this Living Biography. It falls far short of Wikipedia standards for a reputable source. Please read WP:BLP and WP:RS. This issue was discussed extensively here and resolved some time ago. Thank you. Rumiton (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Rumiton, you know very well that ex-premie.org is not anonymously webmastered, and that the authors of ALL the substantive information on Prem Rawat are NOT anonymous. Also, it is a site providing information, NOT an attack site. Do not use these talk pages to further your propaganda. As the webmaster of the site I believe the link should be included, but I will allow others to argue the case if they choose to do so. Also, I have undone one of your 'tweak' edits. 'Universally' is an absolute, so something cannot be 'more universally accepted'. 'Broadly' was fine. --John Brauns (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem with "broadly" but we both know very well that most of the contributors to your website are pseudonymous. They express their views with no editorial control and face no legal redress. They have no working reputation to lose if what they write is challenged. Therefore the site does not meet the standards of a reputable source. This is not my "propaganda"; judgement on the issue was made definitively. I will go through the archives to find the threads if needed. As a matter of interest, did you amend your site to include the "information" I gave you re various situations at Amaroo? Rumiton (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you are confusing my forum, where about half the contributors are anonymous, with ex-premie.org, where no one but myself and Jean-Michel Khan can update, and where I do not allow any substantive allegation against Prem Rawat that is from an anonymous source, and without corroboration. Is it possible you haven't actually read the site? Anyway, your comments about Amaroo were fairly trivial, and as you are anonymous, I couldn't include the information anyway. --John Brauns (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose that the opinions or statements of any ex-premies websites or organizations and of people like Bob Mischler should be in Prem's biography. They may be considered hate groups who say nothing about Prem and a lot about themselves. Wikipedia should be above all that or include hate groups statements in ALL biographies and articles of religious or spiritual nature. Same rule for all, please.--Pedrero (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Pedrero, I am not arguing for the link to my site to be included, so you can relax. But please do not use this site to make false personal attacks against me such as saying I am in a 'hate group'. I am not by any accepted definition of the term. If there is content on my site that you think is inaccurate, please write to me at epowebmaster@yahoo.co.uk. This is not the place for such discussions. --John Brauns (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If you do want your site to express the truth, will you post a short article written by me (real-life name used) which contains easily verifiable information on Amaroo? Rumiton (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Rumiton write to me at epowebmaster@yahoo.co.uk (corrected email address). --John Brauns (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I will gather some facts and prepare a short article. Rumiton (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Momento, I have no problem in removing discussions that do not relate to article improvements but make sure you do not allow false statements to remain unchallenged. --John Brauns (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Editors should not make a habit of deleting comments on talk pages. If a posting needs to be deleted or modified because is outrageously offensive, obviously violates BLP, or is completely off-topic, then it'd be better to ask an uninvolved party to make the redaction or strikeout. Let's not pick fights.   Will Beback  talk  15:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ex premie.org restored in moderated form

The arguments regarding the inclusion of Ex premie.org [23] in the external links section, have failed to address relevant WP policy and guidelines – these are the only basis for reasoned discussion on this talk page – particularly given the ongoing probation status of the article.

The term Attack site WP:BADSITES does not apply and the description attack site in respect of Ex premie.org is confusing at best and its further use on this talk page could be considered deliberate WP:UNCIVIL

The operative guideline is Wikipedia:External links WP:EL and all further discussion on the Ex premie.org external link should be based on that document. As an acknowledgement of the continuing debate I have set the link in plain text as suggested at [[24]] however as Ex premie.org clearly meets the tests under What_should_be_linked [[25]]notably:

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.

Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

there is a burden upon those that oppose the inclusion of the Ex.premie.org link, to make a reasoned argument why the link should not be a live one, rather than just saying they don’t like it. Failure to to act reasonably will inevitably require action under the article probation arrangements.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

- I think that Nik Wright2 is right. The link to Ex-Premie.org should be a hyperlink. Having a hyperlink to the homepage of someone who is frequently called a 'cult leader', and a plain text link to the detractors threatens the unbiased position of a wikipedia article. The article should include both sides of the issue for those who are interested in learning more. Tom renault (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by all this! The article in 'The Register' that led me to all this seemed to suggest that the person who'd been forcing the Mr Gee article to be all positive and excluding any factual information that he thought wasn't positive enough had removed himself after being found out as a supporter. It seems from all the above that there are other partisan supporters doing the same thing to the page. Would it be better to exclude, altogether, articles about cult leaders if it they are sending cult members to beautify them? What happens when an innocent person, directed from, say, cultwatch, to here finds a hagiography? It is one thing to find gush and flim-flam on cult site, but surely wikipaedia should be for articles about genuinely significant people that are objective? I agree that, reading some of the detail of the discussions last year, much of the nature of this particular cult leader becomes clear - but certainly not from the article itself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.223.60.60 (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If all you know about this subject is what you read in the Register, you'll be more than a bit confused. I will respond to the other issues tomorrow. Rumiton (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Reverted undiscussed edit by User:Pongostick--Nik Wright2 (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This subject has been discussed and decided months/years ago. You're welcome to have another discussion about but until Wiki changes it's policy or you can find consensus to make an exception to this article stop making disruptive edits.Momento (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed your vandalisation of the article. How on earth you can see removing vandalism as disruptive, I can't imagine. I'm not confused by the Register. It seems that it, and wikipaedia are showing exactly the same thing, this article is being controlled by cult members. This seems quite wrong. I suggest that the entire article, and connected ones, are put in a delete area until there can be agreement on an honest way forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.223.60.60 (talk) 05:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you sound confused. Your description of Jossi's situation is lifted straight from the Register, and is wrong. Jossi posted under his own name and declared his conflict of interest from the outset. He obeyed all the requirements of Wikipedia in his editing, including confining himself to non-controversial edits, and was commended by the Wikipedia community for doing so. Your statement "...removed himself after being found out" is entirely wrong and highly offensive. Check your facts. Rumiton (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This article has been the subject of intense discussions, numerous RFCs and several arbitrations and the end result is that the only link that has been accepted for over 12 months is Prem Rawat's personal website. You may think that anti-links should be allowed on BLPs but the Wikipedia community disagrees.Momento (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Momento your response is spurious, none of the things you quote has anything substantive on whether or not the words 'ex premie.org' or a live link to Ex premie. org can appear on the PR article page. If you believe that previous discussions have arrived at a consensus please provide the diffs - otherwise stop reverting without justification, it's the kind of behaviour that has had you banned on previous ocassions. I have restored the plain text version while discussions continue.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC) 41.223.60.60 (talk) 10:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Almost got it. The way it actually works is changes are proposed and then discussed. If consensus is achieved the changes are made. Not, make changes without consensus and then discuss.Momento (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of providing a live link to Ex-premie.org. I also object to any charaterization here of EPO or ex-premies as being members of a "hate-group" as those are unfounded allegations asserted by Elan Vital Australia only. There are no other such allegations anywhere else in the world besides Elan Vital-Au, Rawat's supporting organization. I ask that Pedrero refactor (remove) his comment immediately as it is a personal attack and uncivil. Also want to remind editors that this and other Prem Rawat articles are still under ARBCOM probation and therefore more strict rules apply to reverting edits and civility. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that insults are unhelpful, but to include a site which contains (on its Home Page) one-click links to discussions forums where vilification of the subject is applauded (am I going too far? I think not) would be to make a mockery of Living Biographies. Rumiton (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're going way, way too far. We're discussing EPO. Unless you are a legal representative of Prem Rawat (in which case this is the wrong place to express those concerns) you ought to stop your characterizations of ex-premies and what they say on an unrelated website, and right now. You've gone way too far, Rumiton. And stop your baiting, please. Sylviecyn (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The repeated inclusion of the ex-premie link violates WP:EL - "In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links." It also violates WP:SPS - "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources". Until these policies change it will never be allowed.Momento (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. EPO is neither a questionable source nor a source of dubious value nor a "self-published source." Actually, that last criterion is rather vague and inappropriate. Who wrote it? Let me guess. EPO provides valuable consumer information on the harmful and worthless practices called "The Knowledge" which are propagated by Prem Rawat and his minions and competitors. It's taught for free? In that case, it's overpriced. There are worthwhile forms of meditation in the world, but Rawat isn't promoting any of those. Wowest (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Read all the sentence. Is it derogatory? Yes it is. So it "should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links". Is it published by a reliable third party? No it isn't. It is self published. So as far as Wiki is concerned, it's out.Momento (talk) 11:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wowest, you are giving your opinion about the Knowledge techniques and expecting it to be received as "information." This is exactly the problem with the ex-premie site. The posters there confirm each others opinions, then expect to get the same reception elsewhere. We would all like our opinions to be absolutely valued, and maybe there is some parallel universe for each of us where this happens. That would be called Heaven. But here on Earth there is disagreement. How do we resolve this difficulty? In Wikipedia, we use reputable sources. Rumiton (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Momento & Rumiton - are you deliberately obfuscating the meaning of "source" ? Or have you both made exactly the same error ? No one has included material that is 'sourced' to Ex premie.org. All that has happened is that a relevant entry has been made in the external links section. The relevance is unequivocal, however in the light of your opposition and as a compromise I made the link plain text as suggested at WP:EL - it is now only civil of you to explain why under WP:EL Ex premie.org should not be a live link.

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I have a pretty good handle on the word "source." External links are sources for the information in a Wikipedia article and must be reputable, especially for a Living Biography. See WP:EL and scroll down to the paragraph, In biographies of living people. Rumiton (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

An external link may be a source of information 'within' an article but equally it may be a source of information relevant to, but not containable in an article - which is the point at issue, so "source" in WP terms has no issue here. What you appear to be concerned with is: Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP or that are not fully compliant with this guideline. In which case it is up to you to demonstrate why Ex premie.org "contradicts the spirit of WP:BLP", additionally you must explain why "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." does not apply to Ex premie.org, and then why "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."does not apply to Ex premie.org. Unless either you/and or Momento start to address these substantive questions other editors will be inevitably drawn to conclude that you are merely being tendentious - WP:TE You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete my comment again without explaining why.--Pedrero (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Pedrero, the site you link to libels several named people, including myself. One of the libelled persons has already taken legal action against the site owner, and he has removed the libellous material and issued an apology. I and others don't have the money to take legal action but that doesn't give you the right to link to the site from here. --John Brauns (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

John Browns, your website libels Prem, but you and others mention it here repeatedly. Why do you think you have the right to do something but deny the same right to others? If you want WP to mention your website here why don't you preach with example and mention [libellous website link removed by user Sylviecyn, 22 January 2009] in yours? Why has nobody in WP been able to stop this for years? In the Netherlands they have been too politically correct and too tolerant with the intolerant for decades, until they have finally understood that tolerance, like everything, must have limits. Why can't any WP authority who is not a premie stop the absurdity of 39 discussion pages x tens of thousands words each one, going on for years, mainly due to the fact that a few dozen expremies suffer a life long obsession with defaming Prem, out of the half a million to one million expremies I guess there are? I think it is time for WP to learn what the Dutch have learned. If you delete a third time the name of the website I mention I will do the same with yours.----Pedrero (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>Pedrero, that website libels ex-premies who are private individuals (unlike Prem Rawat who is a public person) who are also Wikipedia editors, myself included. It was the subject of a recent California defamation lawsuit in which Jossi Fresco and the website's owner, Geoff Staker, were named parties. As a result of court settlement, the website's owner was forced to remove the defamation material (including photos of her) against Marianne Bachers, a reputable civil rights attorney in San Francisco, with an apology. Please don't reference it nor link to it here anymore. See MARIANNE BACHERS VS. DOES 1 TO 20,INCLUSIVE. I would suggest that Prem Rawat adherents lower their level of vitriol here. This is a discussion about one link to a website that has been in existence for over ten years without any legal action taken against it's owner(s) by Prem Rawat for libel. Also, Rainer P.'s comparison below of ex-premie.org to the KKK, demonstrates that he has no understanding of what a real hate group is or how one operates, especially in the U.S. One again, the only entity in the world that accuses ex-premies of being a hate group is Elan Vital-Australia in its FAQ. Finally, I consider the comments made today by adherents here to be in violation of NPA and are most uncivil to fellow editors. I ask that those editors calm down and perhaps take a breather. Thank you, Cynthia Gracie Sylviecyn (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I did not know these facts.--Pedrero (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone think there should be a link to the Ku Klux Klan site in the Obama article, in order to keep it from otherwise being tendentious? I understand, lately they have been gaining publicity, haven't they.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Pedrero, I understand the point you are making but please do not refer to other non-reputable sources here. Such sources effectively do not exist for Wikipedia purposes, and doing so can only escalate the difficulties we are facing. Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I did not know these facts.--Pedrero (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree with the logic and policy interpretations I see above, and which were used to justify edit warring over this external link. I also disagree with suggestions that we should edit this article differently because of the presence or absence of any specfic editor. Regardless of those two matters, i repeat my strong support for the previous consensus that we shoould include only one single external link at the end of the article: the subject's personl site. There are several reasons for this to be found in the basic external links guideline. As a prctical matter, disputes over external linking seem to lead editors of this article into unproductive fights. In light of the consensus on this matter over the past 9(?) months and this latest edit war,, editors should find agreement before making additions to the list of external links of this article.   Will Beback  talk  15:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not to link to other relevant sites? For example: http://mspeaks.com - http://tprf.org and others which are directly related to Prem Rawat? The fact that a site such as the one being discussed cannot be included due to the living people policy, it should not be an impediment to include other useful sites. Right? PongoStick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pongostick (talk • contribs) 19:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree Pongostick. We have been limited to one link Maharaji.net because several editors disagreed with the logic and policy interpretations that prohibit the defamatory EPO site and a compromise was made. Now that the link to the EPO site has been clearly excluded by an independent admin and his judgement seconded by a member of the Mediation Cabal , I think we can conclude that issue is dead. I agree with WillBeBack that we shouldn't edit this article differently because of the presence or absence of any specfic editor and that includes Will. So now Rawat should be given the same treatment as any other person, therefore links to the PR Foundation, MSpeaks. Words of Peace etc should be included.Momento (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly support the long-standing consensus of retaining just one link. If editors want to add more links they need to get a new consensus. As I have in the past, I will remove any links that don't have a consensus.   Will Beback  talk  00:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:CON "Consensus" between a small number of editors can never override the community consensus that is presented in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines; instead, consensus is the main tool for enforcing these standards. The focus of every dispute should be determining how best to comply with the relevant policies and guidelines. Editors have reached consensus when they agree that they have appropriately applied Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not when they personally like the outcome". WP:EL "What should be linked" says

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as interview transcripts) or other reasons". The links I recommended fall into this category and consensus to exclude them or lack of consensus to include cannot override the community consensus that produced the guideline.Momento (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That guideline allows, but does not require, the inclusion of other links. There is no community consensus to include the specific links you mention. Any discussion of links is likely to lead to further unproductive diusputes, which is why the existing consensus has been upheld over and over again. Unless it is the aim of editors to forment disputes, I strongly suggest dropping this suggestion. If there is important material that should be inclued in this article, then let's include it. We don't nee more links. Links, by themselves, don't further the article.   Will Beback  talk  03:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The point is you don't need to have extra consensus to follow policies or guidelines. The consensus to have one link was arrived at because editors like you refused to accept that EPO was an unsuitable link. Now that it has been disallowed, we can move on. Let's see what others say.Momento (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand that rationale. If links are useful, then they are useful, e.g. a link to the site of the charity Prem founded, and the site that carry webcasts of his speeches. PongoStick

If there is a new consensus to add additional links then that's great. However the existing consensus has been to limit the article to a single link in order to avoid disputes. Jossi was also a strong supporter of that consensus, and the fact that he's left does not mean that we should immediately review previous consensuses. Links to sites created by supporters and detractors of the subject are not necessary to complete this article.   Will Beback  talk  04:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

With the rejection of EPO there will be no disputes. The whole purpose of an encyclopedia to inform, a link to Prem Rawat's official foundation is appropriate, as is the Words of Peace website. No one has suggested to link to the numerous unofficial fan sites. This, or any, article cannot exist if one person can object to an edit that conforms in every way to every Wiki policy and guideline.Momento (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of this encyclopedia is not to be a directory of websites. If more information is needed and appropriate for this article then let's add it directly. The TPRF and other sites are linked from the Maharaji.net home page so interested readers can find them easily.   Will Beback  talk  06:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading the above, I believe your bias is leading you to try to play down the significance of the Arbitration Enforcement decision made by user:Sandstein and supported by other administrators. We are not omitting the ex-premie site from the article because we have a consensus to do so, but because the website ...appears to be operated by private persons and dedicated to making allegations against him, including claims of criminal or immoral conduct. It thereby fails Wikipedia:EL#In biographies of living people. No amount of consensus can make such a link acceptable in a BLP. The other links are open to negotiation. Rumiton (talk) 14:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the one link to Maharaji.net is adequate for this biography, lest the perception be formed that adherents want to make this a promotional article rather than a BLP. Wikipedia isn't the only source on the internet for finding out about Prem Rawat, after all. All one has to do is type any of Rawat's various monikers into Google and a large number of websites are made available there, including contact material. Inclusion of the EPO link is now a moot argument, so please let's move on. There's no reason to escalate this particular argument anymore, imo. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's focus on improving the article, not on fighting over external links.   Will Beback  talk  14:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

External links are an important part of the article. Rumiton (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Because?   Will Beback  talk  12:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Will you have unilaterally removed a link from the EV article without discussion or consensus. Yet here you say we cannot add a link without consensus, meaning your approval. Here's some examples of people whose article contains a helpful link to their foundations[26][27][28]. A link to the Prem Rawat Foundation [29] is the quickest way for readers to get up to date info on the subject of this article. Have you got a policy or guideline reason to substantiate your threat to "remove any links that don't have a consensus" when you don't need consensus to remove links?Momento (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no consensus for new links. The previous consensus to limit the article to one link has prevented unproductive fights.   Will Beback  talk  23:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can, and does, change as the article does. I suggest the current consensus needs to be that we include external links that provide useful information (as distinct from opinion, slander and vituperation) on the subject. There are many to choose from. Rumiton (talk) 02:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it can, but so far I don't see any consensus for including more links. If folks convince the editors here to add more then we can have a new consensus. So far I don't tsee that consensus. Considering that the previous consensus kept the matter free from disputes, and that the external links have repeatedly been the source of disputes, I don't see any hurry to add more. Is the article incomplete without more links? No, i don't think it is. If we need to add actual material to the article then let's add that material to the text. The suggested links are not neutral, and so do not comply with BLP.   Will Beback  talk  03:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

AE notification

• Violations of Arbitration enforcement notified

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Prem_Rawat --Nik Wright2 (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Guys, we have been through this. Consensus was, we put the official link, nothing else. [30] Jayen466 20:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That was when the site was under control of cult members. As reported in 'The Register':

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/09/fresco_retires_from_wikipedia/

Jossi Fresco apparently left wikipaedia, so there is now a chance of this article being updated accurately. Cult members excluding valuable information from an ex-cult member site makes no sense if you are to have a genuinely useful and encyclopaedic article. Otherwise it is simply hagiography and the article should be deleted. 41.223.60.60 (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Just about everything in the Register article is wrong, and you are embarassing yourself by quoting it here. That article is part of an anti-Wikipedia campaign, and is not intended to be even read by active Wikipedia editors. It is for the titillation of people who don't know any better. Rumiton (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Rumiton is incorrect about the Register article, which is almost entirely accurate except for a few details. But it reflects the past, assuming Jossi does not return. Let's not focus on individual editors. Every article on Wikipedia is a work in progress and every article can be improved. However this article is not so bad that it should stubbed and rewritten. If there are specific errors or omissions then we can deal with those.   Will Beback  talk  00:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"It reflects the past"? Metz says, for years, Jossi Fresco maintained strict control over the site's Prem Rawat article and countless related articles[...] last year, during multiple email exchanges, he denied any conflict of interest. Jossi edited under his own name and declared his conflict of interest from the start, and followed all Wikipedia guidelines and decisions. And I think everyone can see that nobody can "maintain strict control" over ANY Wikipedia article that enough people care about, which is the case here. "...almost entirely accurate except for a few details"? You must be joking. Your statement is an insult to Jossi and Wikipedia. Rumiton (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

We have a difference of opinion. That's OK. These issues aren't relevant to future improvements to the article.   Will Beback  talk  14:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's another difference of opinion, and I don't think it is OK at all. If Jossi "maintained strict control" over these articles, then there was no consensus. The fact is that a great deal of negotiation has taken place throughout, and the Register author is being deliberately deceitful to create an artificial sensation. These are not "a few details," just as trying to insert a derogatory link into a BLP is not a "minor infringement." You can't have it both ways, Will. Are you going to admit you were wrong? Rumiton (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

We're not here to discuss Jossi. What does this have to do with future improvements to the article?   Will Beback  talk  01:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? If the Register is right, then we have no consensus for the current state of this article. If the Register is seriously wrong, then so are you. If that is the case you should admit it so we can maove on. Rumiton (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you keep asking, I think that Jossi continuously violated the WP:COI guideline and his repeated promises to not edit the topic. I think he made even graver violations of Wikipedia policy and abused the trust of the community. I do not think that this article is perfect, but it is good enough that I don't feel a need to apply tags or stub it or anything like that. I look forward to working with other editors to continue improving it.   Will Beback  talk  03:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are answering the question you want to answer and ignoring the point I raised. What sort of editing behaviour is this? Rumiton (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Stop this now. This argument is not helpful and it is definitely not the subject of this article. This is not not unhelpful and and it's bordering on uncivil. All of you, please, stop this now, or if you must go on bickering about it, please take your arguments about the Register article elsewhere. Enough is enough already. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. So let's now develop a consensus on what external links should be allowed in these articles. Seems to me the onus is on those who want to restrict them to just one or two to explain why (in Wikipedia terms) they think this is desirable. Rumiton (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Prem Rawat, what exactly is he?

An article intro should clearly state up front what the subject of the article is. I changed the first sentence to read, basically, that "Prem Rawat is a guru." This was reverted with the summary, "Guru is what he used to be." So, what is he now? Televangelist? Teacher? Preacher? Religious leader? Philosopher? Wealthy, self-employed businessman? Entrepreneuer? Philanthropist? Missionary? All of these things? Whatever he is, it needs to state it in the first sentence. Cla68 (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it. He's a spiritual leader [31]. I'll change the intro. Cla68 (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Cla68 that the first sentence should say what PR is rather than what he was. His most consistent and widely accepted occupation is "teacher", an expanded description follows in the lead. In addition to his teaching activities he is also involved in philanthropic pursuits.Momento (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. The Prem Rawat Foundation (TPRF) has only been in existence since 2001 so the moniker "philanthropist" is misleading and there's no source for it other than his own foundation. Besides, TPRF spends far more money promoting Rawat and his travel than it does on charities -- that's according to its own financial reports, btw. Btw, why is TPRF, a primary source, being used to desribe what he is? If he's going to be called a teacher, then "meditation teacher" is a more accurate description. Btw, why isn't "Knowledge" (the name of the meditation techniques he teaches) in the lede? He's not a "spiritual leader" either. According to his websites what Rawat teaches isn't a religion, spirituality, philosophy, etc. "He is the leader of a new religious movement" is a more accurate description. For the time period 1966 through around 1982 when his name and title was Guru Maharaj Ji. He only dropped the title for the sake of appearances. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

O.K. What is he now? He is now a former guru, formerly accused of being a cult-leader who has mended his ways and has given back all of the ill-gotten money he extracted from his mesmerized following in the past. That's true, isn't it?Wowest (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wowest, what you are doing here is called baiting. It is irritating, but isn't going to get the reaction you seem to want. Please stop doing it. Rumiton (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Cla68 and Wowest, your personal pages are fantastic. I do not know whether this is an acceptable reaction or not, but please let me suggest that you you forget about Prem Rawat and read "The Second Coming of Jesus the Christ" by Paramahansa Yogananda. I was born in a Catholic family in 1944, and always liked to read the Bible and think about the mysterious sentences, and I only understood it completely after that book, published in 2004. I you like it, "Krishna Talks to Arjuna" is my second favourite. Despite the names, both books are 70 % psychology, one of the interests we share. Yogananda rarely or never touched money with his hands as an adult, his followers did, so he would have time for better things, and the same with Prem. I wish you a nice day.--Pedrero (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Momento made an edit that deleted names of the subject which we've discussed at great length previously. He also inserted "philanthropist", for which we don't even have a neutral source. I have restored the names and the title "spiritual teacher", and removed "philanthropist".   Will Beback  talk  16:31, 26 January 2009

Please do not harass me. Your claim that you have "restored the names and the title "spiritual teacher" "is completely false. The name "Lord of the Universe" which you claim to have "restored" was first inserted less than 24 hours ago without discussion and not discussed a "great length previously". The same applies to "spiritual teacher" which was inserted yesterday without discussion. Cla68 made the sensible suggestion that the article should start in the "present". No one has objected to that and therefore changes need to be made to accommodate that. Rawat is a "philanthropist" as is covered in the article "In 2001, Rawat founded the The Prem Rawat Foundation (TPRF),[114] a Public Charitable Organization for the production and distribution of materials promoting his message, and also for funding worldwide humanitarian efforts. TPRF has provided food, water and medical help to war-torn and impoverished areas.[115]" Seven people have edited this article in the last 24 hours but you continue to misrepresent what happens to suggest that I am the only person removing and adding material and you are simply "restoring" the status quo. Play fair or we will have to seek Arbcom assistance.Momento (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Complaining on a talk page about inappropriate edits is not harassment. I don't care so much about "LOTU", though a mention of the epithets including "Perfect Master" may be appropriate. The main point is the deletion of the other names. There's now a thread for that below. There is also a thread for "philanthropist". "Spiritual teacher" is sourced. I don't see an explanation for why that was deleted. As for the status quo, the lead paragraph of this article has been fairly stable for months until today.   Will Beback  talk  20:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)