User talk:Steven Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal7

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Proposal 7.1 Per our lengthy discussions at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat#Issue/Discussion topic C: 'Opulent/Sumptuous lifestyle. I've prepared and posted a draft. Almost all of the sources used in it are at Talk:Prem Rawat/Lifestyle. The material contains a review of the main issues raised in countless articles, especially concerning cars, planes, and real estate. His mother is the only named critic. There are two quotes from Rawat, one from a follower, and one from a spokesman. We could shorten it by getting rid of the four short quotes but I think they add context. Which reminds me, I can't find the source for Indian gurus being supported in luxury. I know I've seen it recently. Can anyone help? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC) (a) celebrityaircraft.com is not a RS; (b) Over quoting Levine is unacceptable; (c) Indian gurus being supported in luxury I don't know where you got that from; (d) Hunt does not speak of "ostentatious opulence", that is Levine again; (e) the quotes are picked up for effect; (f) missing important context about many of these cars being gifts; (g) Don't get me started on Larson as a source. In summary: A shorter, tighter sentence that is fully attributed may work, as it stands it does not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC) A) That was just for convenience. There appear to be other sources for the private jets. B) Overquoting? For one thing, they're two different Levines. Regardless of that, I'm not sure I've ever heard of an objection to "over quoting" from a source. C) It'll show up. I know I've seen it and I recall we all discussed it some time back. D) Yes, that's from Levine. So? It's cited. E) The quotes are picked to be informative and give context. F) I have sources for the London Rolls and the Masaerati being gifts. Do you have sources for any others? Maybe the simplest thing would be to tack on, "...some of which were gifts." G) Larson agrees with Downton that Rawat's father was wealthy. Larson qualifies as a reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC) (a) Which other sources?; (b) if there are different "Levines" please provide full sources; (c) We shall see if it does; (d) that Levine is not a "scholar", he is a psychiatrist; (e) The quotes are picked up for effect and not "informative" whatsoever; (f) "some of which were gifts" it is not enough; (g) Larson's book is written from a Christian perspective attacking anything that is not Christian. If used at all, it need full attribution and context. The book is described as "This volume helps address tough questions from a biblical perspective." In the back cover: "Bob Larson analyzes the history, practices, and appeal of each movement and evaluates its belief system from a Christian perspective using biblical criteria." I also don't see anything in Larson's about "Rawat father being wealthy"≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC) A) Just Google "rawat" and "gulfstream". For example, "Peace at a price", Hedley Thomas, The Courier-Mail, April 24, 2004. B) As noted the full citations are in the article already, or in the page of sources. C) Yes. I think it was Rumiton who commented again recently about it, saying that it was important context. D) Levine is a "Professor of Clinical Psychiatry".[1] Professor = scholar. E) We can remove the quotes, but then we lose context and points of view. I thought editors wanted more context for this material, not less. F) What sources do you have for the gifts? As I already wrote, I only know of sources for two of the cars being gifts. Do you want to go into detail and say which were gifts? G) Larson talks about Hans Ji on page 205, at the bottom of the page. Since he agrees with Downton, and since no other sources dispute the wealth, I don't see what the problem is. Other editors, perhaps Rumiton or Momento, thought it important to say that Rawat came from wealth, to show that he had was continuing a lifestyle in which he'd been raised. Christian writers are reliable sources too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Re C) – "Maharaj Ji was the youngest of four sons of Sri Hans Ji, and even as a young child participated with his family in their public religious programs. Given this status, he was accorded a great deal of attention from his father's devotees and lived in luxury.13" Galanter 1989 p21 [2]; there appears to be a footnote too ("13"), of which the text is not given at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars#Galanter. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Also re C - "...according to Khalid Shah, a correspondent for the Illustrated Weekly of India: '...He is a member of the highest Brahmin caste. His family is quite wealthy.'" (Current Biography Yearbook, 1974 p. 255). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC) A great deal of attention is correct by his father devotees is correct, and the fact that Rawat is from the Rajputs is also correct (but not a Brhamin caste). As for being "wealthy" it is very doubtful that his father was such. In any case, the sentence you have there is not what the sources say. As for the other comments above, please provide sources and I will be glad to discuss them. I do not see page 205 of Larson, please provide the text in that page. Yes, Christian writers can be used, but context and attribution is imperative. As for Levine, he is not a "scholar", regardless how you look at it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC) The "piloting a Jumbo Jet and a Gulfstream" can be added in the section about his flying interests. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC) What's the source for Rawat's Rajput lineage? As for the father's wealth, we have reliable sources that say he was wealthy and that Rawat was raised in luxury. Are there any sources to the contrary? Perhaps folks here aren't familiar with Harvard system of citing sources. The references can be found in Talk:Prem Rawat/Lifestyle or Prem Rawat#References. I'm not sure I understand what Jossi means by "I do not see page 205 of Larson". It's the first page of his chapter on "Guru Maharaj Ji" and immediately follows page 204. Saul V. Levine is indeed a scholar. He is employed as a scholar, has written as a scholar, and has been cited as a scholar. On what grounds would someone say that he isn't a scholar? As for aviation interrests, it'd make more sense to move that miscellaneous material up here, and handle it all together. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC) - I've added the pilots license info from the "aviaiton interests" section to consolidate it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Harvard is not the style of citing we are using. Please add the full sources as we have done on other proposals so that I can check these sources. I do not have access to page 205 of Larson, the Google Book version has page 148-150, so I am asking to see what he wrote n whatever edition you have. Interesting how do you want to call Levine a scholar, but for other authors we describe them as "Sociologist", "Professor of Religion", etc. In any case, the viewpoints of Hunt, Levine, Galanter, Maeve, etc can all be summarized for NPOV. The flying of Jumbo Jet and a Gulfstream does not belong here, it belongs to the Aviation interest section. As for the Rajput lineage of the Rawat family, you have Cagan and McKean. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC) If Jossi is finding it hard to decipher the Harvard system I'd be more than happy to post the full set of references on this page so that they aren't a source of confusion. If Joss had only said he didn't have access to Larson I would have provided the quote initially. In the edition I have he writes Guru Maharaj Ji owes the founding of the Divine Light Mission (DLM) to his wealthy, revered father... Again I ask for any source which disputes this. The flying of planes is much more appropriate here, when he started to fly, then in a "miscellaneous" section stuck on the end of the article. The invention of the watch doesn't appear to be notable enough to mention at all. As for Cagan, we can't use that book because the caste is disputed. McKean is reliable, but still contradicts our other source. I think that simply saying "high caste" covers both Brahmin and Rajput casts, so is accurate without getting into the dispute. If Jossi thinks that the viewpoints of every scholar available should be summarized this material will be much longer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC) I object to the undue weight, bias, lack of fairness and irrelevance of this proposal.Momento (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC) How much weight do you think it deserves, and why? What part of this is unfair? How is it irrelevant to the life of Prem Rawat? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC) By all means let us say that he is rich and received (perhaps still receives) donations that enabled him to live like a millionaire (we are saying that already), that he had a Rolls-Royce and other luxury vehicles, but this listing of the all-time contents of his garage is way over the top. As I said elsewhere, we don't list P. Diddy's or Snoop Dogg's cars either, and for a good reason – their notability is not based on their car collections (even though their cars have been mentioned in the media, much as in the present case). (And would there be an objection to naming the proposals within a proposal "drafts"?) Jayen466 23:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure that unfair is the right word, but it sounds envious. Like we're really bothered that he has all those cars. That's the sort of thing I expect to read in a tabloid, but not in an encyclopedia. Jayen466 00:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC) How many press conferences have P. Diddy held that revolved around their cars? How many times are their cars mentioned in mainstream news articles? The cases aren't analogous. Some people end up being notable for things that are ignored in other people. It's not for us to go back and redo history to make it how we think it should have gone. But as a compromise I'm willing ti cut the list down tothe cars most frequently mentioned. And I like the "drafts" idea. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC) How many times are their cars mentioned in mainstream news articles? Dozens, if not hundreds of times. [3] [4] Plus I believe there has been the odd press conference about a badly parked Ferrari. ;-) Jayen466 01:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Different people are notable for differnt things. The article on Sean Combs devotes a paragraph to his wardrobe, because that's an important part of his public image and notability. Likewise, this subject is well-known for his cars, and hardly a single journalist from the period fails to mention them in some way. Per our discussion here I've trimmed the list to the most frequently mentioned. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Also, I might add that most of the hits from that search are for articles about the Bently that just mention an owner, rather than articles about Diddy/Combs that make a big deal about his cars. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC) That was only the Bentley. There is also the Maybach, Ferrari and his Gulfstream jet. [5] [6] :-) Jayen466 12:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC) <outdent>I think this is an accurate depiction of Rawat's life and how it has been viewed by scholars and media alike. His possesion of luxury vehicles is noteworthy because he's a relgious leader in the U.S., not a celeb. The controversy is that he obtained his wealth from his followers. He was supported to a large extent through donations to DLM, which was a non-profit church in the United States that benefitted from that status on the U.S. taxpayers dime. That's what makes it extremely noteworthy. Rawat espcially stood out during the initial acquisition of his wealth in the 1970s. This isn't analagous to celebrities that have lots of cars -- they're expected to have a lot of luxury cars, for crying out loud. See Jay Leno. Being wealth and living an opulent lifestyle is important to Rawat. Here's one way Prem Rawat explained being rich in 1995 at an event in Long Beach, California. Read this and tell me it's not controversial and shouldn't be treated that way!! "You know some people don't like rich people. They have this idea or that idea of what it is to be rich. But they really don't know. It's not easy to be rich. It isn't. Once you've made your first million, you need another to protect it. Then you have two million, and you'll need another two million to protect those two million. Then you'll have four million and you'll need another four million to protect those four million, and then you'll have eight million. Of course then you'll need another 8 million to protect those eight million and then you'll have 16 million... it isn't easy, it's not what you think." -- Prem Rawat Sylviecyn (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC) LOL! As if religious leaders in the US are not wealthy! And I thought you lived in the US. Being wealth and living an opulent lifestyle is important to Rawat is your own opinion, which you are entitled of course, but please spare us claiming your opinion being any other than just that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC) And btw, that quote is spot on, 100%. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC) That's a nice quote, but it's too long for the article. I think the other quoke from Rawat, about not really living in luxury, conveys some of the same viewpoint more briefly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC) That is a good quote. I don't see it as controversial, Sylvie, to me it is an accurate description of the human dilemma posed by personal wealth. But as far as I know, quotes from subjects are not admissible in a bio due to the ease with which they can be taken out of context. Not that anyone here would do that. Rumiton (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC) I'd say: no quotes, please, unless we want to contemplate yet-another-quote war as in the past. Not needed whatsoever. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC) For comparison, I've posted P7.2 which is identicial to P7.1 but with the quotes deleted. I think P7.1 is better, but it's easier to compare this way. Any other objections to P7.1/7,2? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Sources missing; and does not address other concerns already expressed. As I said, I am working on an alternative version, pls have some patience. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Which concerns still need to be addressed? Please specify. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC) The ones I have listed in this thread. You may think you have answered to these, but I am not satisfied with your arguments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)~ Which issues aren't you satisfied with? I'm not a mind reader. Please specify so that they can be addressed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Proposal 7.X I will work on an alternative proposal, as I am not confident that proposal 7.1 can be fixed. I will incorporate as many sources used there, add others and present the material in a better and more neutral manner. It may take me a day or two. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Every point that you've raised about 7.1 has been addressed. What need is there for a different proposal?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback (talk • contribs) No, It has not, Will. I will give it a go, and I am confident it will be a good proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC) What issues haven't been addressed in 7.1? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC) I will address these in a new proposal, which I am working on. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 3 I've posted Draft 3. It adds back the quote from the follower, and summarizes one of the quotes of Rawat that is frequently cited. It incorporate the issues covered by the Hunt quote from the "Westernization" section (except for the follower's experience part, which is probably better placed in some other context). It adds the complaints from the former officials, Mishler and Garson. It contextualizes the Jensen purchase, which was noted by the press. I've also translated most of the refs, per Jossi's request. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC) We are having the discussion about this elsewhere. Splitting the discussion is not useful. The proposals you are making are at odds with these discussions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC) This discussion is over specific text. The other discussion is over the general approach to the issue. It's been running for several weeks. Without actual text to talk about that discussion seems to have wondered off track. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC) This "specific text" is being thoroughly challenged in that discussion. The proposals made there are about as specific as it gets. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC) "... Two Cessna airplanes were obtained for Rawat's use and he got his pilot's license in 1973. ..." – seems quite young for a license so a citation would be in order here I suppose. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC) I'm looking for that source now. I recall reading that he got his license while in India for a prolonged stay. That'd be either early '73 or mid-1975. We can omit the exact date if we can't find the source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC) This isn't the source that I recall, but it's a Washington Post article from September 1971, when the subject was reportedly 13 years old: Someone says the guru needs only seven more hours flying time to get his pilot's license. "The first landing he ever made was perfect." "I should hope so," says the woman, who travels with Toomey. I believe that age limits are different for flying than for driving. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC) I checked and the current laws in both the U.S. and India set a minimum age of 16 to recieve a license. But I don't think there's a limit on training. It's also possible that rules have changed, or aren't enforced. I think it's clear that he had his first license by the mid-1970s. Since the material is proposed tp be placed in the chronological section, we can omit the exact date. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC) FYI, I've made quite a few changes in resonse to the input - including shortening the list of cars, giving more space to the view of followers, and rewriting the lead sentence. I'm still fleshing out all of the sources. Some things are so widely reported that many sources are available. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC) What a mishmash, WP:OR and not-neutral paragraph. If you think this is useful at all, you are mistaken. This is just a mishmash of sources carefully selected for effect, WP:V works alongside NPOV, and does not override it: A common type of dispute is when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included. In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias. Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC) What original research? Virtually every assrtion is cited once or twice, and those that aren't can be. What specific objections do you have? Is there any particular sentence or phrase that's problematic? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC) As I said, it is a mishmash of materials, rendered to present a specific viewpoint. Rather that making such mishmash and carefully use of selected quotes for effect, we ought to use neutral summaries that already have been made by scholars that have studied the subject ((such as Bromley, Hunt, for exampl) which places the material in the correct context. This s a BLP and not a piece of "journalism" better suited for People Magazine. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC) This draft does use Bromley and Hunt. Do you have objections to any particular sentence or phrase? Which part is original research? What context needs to be added, in your opinion? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC) My contention is that all of that is already summarized in the article, as per Jaen's arguments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC) You're making all kinds of contentions but not clearly explaining any of them. Please say what is OR in this text. Also, please point to the material that isn't NPOV. As for being covered elsewhere, see the top note, which explains how various material in the article is brought together in one place, and covered in one logical package. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and you should not use these sources to make a cocktail of quotes of your chosing to assert your viewpoints. That is WP:SYN and most unwelcome. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC) None of the sources used are tabloids. Do you have any specific issues, or is it OK to post as it is? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Don't play games with me, Will. I am too old for these games. This piece which you have put together by careful selection of quotes for best effect, as if this was a second-rate magazine, is not a happening thing as far as I am concerned. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC) If you want to stop playing games then please explain your list of complaints, as I've requested several times. Start with pointing out where the original research is. Then show where the NPOV is violated. You make claims but you can't seem to actually point to any real problem with the text. Without pointing out and explaining specific concerns your complaints are just "I don't like it." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 4 Essentially Will's draft 3, with cpedit, tweaks, sources tunings. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC) That looks OK to me. I wonder if we could integrate the last part of this sentence into the main paragraph? When former officials of Rawat's organisations voiced their criticism in the aftermath of the Jonestown drama in the late 1970s they didn't limit themselves to the movement, but included its leader in their comments,[74] for instance that money was increasingly diverted to Rawat's personal use.[17] It's directly related to this topic. To some extent it's already covered, but if we can cover it fully here then we can delete it from the "Critical viewpoints" section and avoid duplication. It would also address jayen and Jossi's concern that this material is already covered elsewhere. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC) I object to Proposal 7 when several other proposals have not been completed.Momento (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC) That's not much of a reason. It doesn't make sense to hold up editing the entire topic because of one or two disagreements. If you're not interested in this proposal you don't have to participate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC) This topic is already covered in the article. See previous and current discussions, which you somehow have ignored in these "proposals". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC) The topic isn't covered fully. It was a source of "considerable controversy". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC) This is a moot point. You cannot only propose and create "negative" material to add to this article. It is already unbalanced, particularly with '70s newspaper sources.Momento (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC) This is an important topic in the life of the subject. It was the source of "considerable controversy". As for the focus on the 1970s, it was the time of the subject's greatest prominence. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Greatest media prominence perhaps but this is an encyclopedia not a media summmary. And again, you cannot just include only the material you like and ignore the rest. There are other proposals needing to be completed before this..Momento (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC) How many scholarly books mention him anymore, either? It's not just the media that found him more interesting in the 1970s than in later decades. As for the other proposals, they are all independent. I recall you saying that we couldn't work on the intro until the rest of the article is finished. Now you're saying that we can't work on the rest of the article until we finish the intro. Since there are pending questions waiting at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal4, you apparenlty aren't in any hurry to finish that proposal either. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Jets Seeking input regarding the jets. The sources I've encountered thus far aren't too great, re. models, time, typos... Also asking myself whether there are more sources regarding DECA and whether we should mention it. DECA & 7X7 Citizendium (sourced to Cagan) [7] in 1980, Rawat obtained the use of a Boeing 707 for his work, and during 1981 flew the aircraft to South America, Europe, India, Nepal, Australia, New Zealand and Malaysia, speaking on 120 occasions in forty cities. prem-rawat-maharaji.info and prem-rawat-bio.org In 1979 the acquisition and customization of a Boeing 707 for Prem Rawat's exclusive use became a dominant drive within the then Divine Light Mission. A 1961 vintage aircraft was acquired for US$1 million from an American Football Team. A business operation called the DECA Project and based in Florida was set up and ashram residents were drafted in to all aspects of work on the plane itself as well as project management and, most significantly - fund raising. Like other expansive projects undertaken by Rawat's followers, DECA had no beneficial impact on the Rawat movement or its participants, however DECA did provide a model for income generation which was free of the costs and other considerations of the ashram system. Although dependant on the ashrams for its existence, DECA, or at least the funding expertise that it generated, can be seen as the development which allowed Rawat to dissolve the costly ashram system in 1982 and 1983, and to still maintain an income flow to his organizations. Within the DECA facility a range of activities took place that were focussed on Prem Rawat's interests - servicing of his Rolls Royces was undertaken there. The financial structure seems to have lacked commonly expected controls and there have been accusations of inadequate and illegal work practices. Work on the Boeing 707 was completed in 1980 but the plane was never put into service for Prem Rawat and was sold to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi who had it flown to Malaysia where it rapidly fell into disuse because its emissions exceeded legal limits. The DECA business sought development as a corporate jet customization operation but proved unviable and was soon sold, being renamed Aircraft Modular Products(AMP). Some of Prem Rawat's followers gained employment with AMP but the company had no other links with Rawat or his organizations. AMP prospered and was sold in 1998 by it's then owner Roger Koch for over US$ 100 million. It is unclear what happened to the receipts from the sale of the Boeing 707 and the DECA business. There appears to have been a chronic incapacity within Divine Light Mission to protect either its interests as a charity or the interests of those who voluntarily assisted it. Numerous business operations started by Prem Rawat's followers seem to have become absorbed into a quasi corporate structure ostensibly to the benefit of Divine Light Mission, only to be 'demerged' to the sole benefit of subsequent owners. Those individuals who achieved ownership of businesses started under the aegis of Divine Light Mission frequently retained close personal contact with Prem Rawat and Rawat appears to have benefited financially from those contacts. "Blinded by the Light" in Good Weekend, Sydney, Australia, August 31, 2002. Web version (PDF) at rickross.com [...] the first of many private jets [...] materialised. An early Divine 707 boasted a gold toilet, says American ex-premie Cynthia Gracie, who worked to refurbish it – “though I don’t know if it was solid or plated gold”. Bromley and Shupe 1982 Some premies, according to reports, decided their guru needed his own prviate Boeing 747 [sic], and Maharaj Ji responded with delight at the idea. Gulfstream V Ex-premie.org See http://www.ex-premie.org/pages/finance1.htm#G5 I think it would be better to have some additional sources here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC) What kind of s***t is this? These are no sources that should be even mentioned here, and you know it. What are you trying to pull off here? Shameful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 5 While I appreciate Francis' research, I think the DECA/707 material isn't sourced to the same standards as the rest of the paragraph, and the rest of the article. Mcgregor is disputed and so is Cagan, and since they're the only sources for it I think it's better to leave it out of this proposal. Bromley & Shupe is ambiguous, but we do have enough sources for him piloting a private jet. Let's leave it at that. I also moved up the clause "for instance that money was increasingly diverted to Rawat's personal use.[17]", which would be deleted from the last sentence in the second paragaph of the "Critical viewpoints" section. Let's keep this trim, well-sourced, and neutral. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC) I'm happy with that. Re. Gulfstream, I think the name of the plane should be left out too, not enough sources. Re. piloting license, this definitely still needs stronger sourcing: The only real source I could find is [8] (note: the link to the Landings website currently used directs to an obsolete page) (note 2: when he got his license is still unclear, and not verifiable from the Landings website as far as I can see) the Hinduism today article has "Flying to major cities around the world almost continually in his private jet,..." which doesn't even necessarily imply he pilots the jet. (note that this isn't a source for the Gulfstream either, certainly not Gulfstream V: the article was published more than 15 years before that one) other? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC) I've withdrawn Draft 5, since the changes were incorporated into Draft 4. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 4 (continued) In view of the above discussion of draft 5, and the tweaks and updates I brought to draft 4 as a consequence of that, that version (Proposal7#4) is ready to go to the Rawat article, as far as I'm concerned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Not ready whatsoever. Suddenly you are so rushed? Why? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC) We've been discussing this topic since mid-June.[9] No one is presenting specific objections to this text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC) No consensus Has there been a discussion about choosing this area as Proposal 7. There are many other areas that are more important. I can't see any discussion about it and therefore there is no consensus for this proposal.Momento (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Re. "Has there been a discussion about choosing this area as Proposal 7." (assuming that was a question:) yes. Read first sentence of this talk page above: "Per our lengthy discussions at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat#Issue/Discussion topic C: 'Opulent/Sumptuous lifestyle, I've prepared and posted a draft..." Re. "There are many other areas that are more important." – irrelevant: progress is progress. Quite naturally it is easier to make progress first on issues of limited scope. Re. "I can't see any discussion about it..." – Read the whole page, click the link in its first sentence (after which you'd need to click the "show" button here) Re. "...and therefore there is no consensus for this proposal" – not a logical conclusion of what precedes it (even if the first half of the sentence would've been correct, which it isn't - see previous point). Let the mediator decide whether there's consensus or not. Lacking specific objections I see no problem to go ahead with this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC) I agree that is not up to individual editors to call for consensus or lack of it. Make yourt arguments, Momento about this material, and if you want, work on an alternative proposal. My opinion is that the material does not need to be included as presented, and that it is hatchet job more suitable for a piece of yellow journalism than an encyclopedia. I am working on an alternative version and I may submit soon. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Working towards consensus requires that editors who have objections explain them so that the objections can be addressed. So far every specific objection has been addressed. Unless there are serious objections substantiated by solid arguments, I propose the edit be made by Steve at 00:00 UTC July 8. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC) The objections have been clearly stated in this and other discussion pages. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC) No they haven't. All that's been written here is that it's a mishmash which you don't like. Please give specific objections that can be addressed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Yes I have, a well as others. The fact that you ignore it is your problem and not mine. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC) I've asked you repeteadly to explain your vague complaints. You never have. Please prove me wrong by showing where you pointed out the original research, for example. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Again, if no one can present any serious, specific objeciotns this material should be posted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Alright, just to give my thoughts here, on a few things. In response to determining consensus, I do believe at times, that while it's not up to one editor to call for consensus/lack of consensus, however commonly it is the role of an editor to determine consensus, and I feel that's my role here. Looking at the current discussion, I can see no clear consensus, so for now, I would decline on making any of the proposed edits. However, I feel it would be best if specific concerns on proposals are made, or alternative proposals are written. Additionally, my apologies for not being highly active right now, I have had a lot to deal with concerning a wikiproject which I help run, so, let's say I've just been stretched thin. Steve Crossin (contact) 19:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Steve, do you think it's appropriate for editors to stonewall changes by making vague objections? How do we deal with this form of obstruction? I don't see how saying things like "it's a hatchet job" brings us any closer to a consensus, and it doesn't appear intended to either. If folks aren't making good faith efforts to seek consensus then progress is impossible. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC) I think that a deliberate attempt to stall mediation by "stonewalling" is never helpful to progress. I'm pointedly asking here, that either specific points are raised about proposals and concerns with them, or writing up a new proposal, or declaring that another proposal will be shortly written. But giving deliberately vague objections (not saying that is happening, just saying if), I find makes mediation difficult. Steve Crossin (contact) 20:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC) My specific objection is that WillBeBack and Francis have determined which Proposals are made and what direction they go in. This Proposal is concerned with finding and inserting as much negative material about Rawat luxurious lifestyle as possible. It is biased, unfair and undue weight. They are using the most extreme descriptions such as "A follower told a reporter that Rawat fired a pistol at prized vases in the backyard to "to teach us the worthlessness of material possessions." to paint a picture that suits their PPOV. No mention is given that the Knowledge is free, no mention is given about the free medical clinics set up, no mention that until 1974 Rawat was not in control of DLM, exceptional claims are made without exceptional sources, no mention that his mother was described as "materialistic" and that she and BBJ were largely responsible for the Millennium debt, no mention that the President of DLM was credited with asking people for trust money not Rawat,no mention that the former officials were fired and that their complaints found no support etc etc.Momento (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC) The need for this material was determined at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat#Issue/Discussion topic C: 'Opulent/Sumptuous lifestyle, where over 50 sources discusing this controversy have been assembled. The material is not biased, it is fair, and it does not give undue weight. The Draft 4 summarizes the views of a mahatma, two spokesmen, and a follower, plus gives two views of Rawat himself, so it amply gives the "pro" point of view. While supporters may claim that "Knowledge is free", obviously many people paid/donated a lot of money. The free medical clinics were not set up by Prem Rawat, but by the DLM, and are mentioned in that article. The role of Rawat in the DLM is not part of this topic, so I don't see why we'd include that here. The role of Mata Ji and BBJ in the Millennium festival is mentioned in that paragraph, so there's no reason to say that here. The firing of Mishler, etc. is not related to this topic and is really related to the DLM, where it's already covered. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC) I'll say again that it's unhelpful to complain about "undue weight" without saying what "due weight" would be, and why. Based both on the coverage in the press and statements in scholarly publications this is one of the most controversial aspects of the subject's life. Exactly how much weight does Momento think it should get, and why? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Undue weight, as others have pointed out, is to give more words than a topic deserves. Rawat's luxury life was a minor point, like his height,weight and diet compared to his age, his message, his followers and his popularity. It certainly wasn't controversial to educated people and as the sources indicate, the media's interest in his wealth was over three years in the early 70s. It is already adequately covered in the article and adding more is undue weight.Momento (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Momento, how are you deciding what deserves weight? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Very easily. I look at the overall article and see the proportion of space given to various topics.Momento (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC) As I've said before, I'd prefer summarizing the available scholarly sources on this topic. Scholarly sources are available. We should use them. --Jayen466 23:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC) We are using them. Do you mean that we should use them exclusively because the New York Times, etc are not reliable sources? If that's what you mean then you need to show why sources that are accepted across Wikipedia are not good enough for this material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC) I agree with Jaen. Yes, we have historical newspaper articles from 1972 to 1974. Most of these, with the exception of a few, are not from the mainstream newspapers. Furthermore, we have scholarly sources on the subject that are superior and of later dates that summarize what could be considered primary sources (historical newspapers are primary sources). So, it is a much better use of sources to use the best sources available, which already make summaries of these, instead of inventing a summary here, by picking and choosing what to cite, and using selective quotes. I would say: (a) remove all quoted text; (b) summarize the scholarly sources first; and if after all this, there is something that is relevant and that has been missed by our scholarly sources, then go back and find the best of the mainstream newspapers and add what's missing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC) I agree with Jayen and Jossi. If scholars cover the topic, and they do, they are far preferable to media repeating what each other says. One AP report gets reprinted and re-interpreted a dozen times by reporters who know nothing of the subject and people think it is important.Momento (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Are there any specific sources being used in this draft that are disputed? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC) I have made a proposal above your comment. Do you understand the proposed approach? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC) What Momento says above, about cult reporting in the media, is backed up by Bromley and Shupe, for example: Furthermore, as is so often the case, the media to some extent creates its own news ... The mechanics of news reporting virtually guarantees that once an allegation ... has been published somewhere, somewhere else another journalist researching previous articles as background for his own piece will, because of deadlines and editorial pressures, uncritically include it as fact. Thereafter the allegation takes on a well-nigh independent life of its own. — Bromley/Shupe, Strange Gods, pp. 105–106 Then there was the UN religious freedom report describing media reporting in the U.S. and elsewhere as "grotesque", "distorted", "insensitive" and "harmful". However, looking at what sections of the draft are actually cited to the press, I think no one disputes that Rawat had cars, that a Rolls Royce and an MB limousine were among them, and that there were various sports cars as well. I have no issue with that being mentioned "for colour", even if scholars don't mention it. Likewise that he had flying lessons etc. is not in doubt. We can still talk about where that should best be mentioned, but at least it seems secure information. The Rolling Stone allegation is more questionable. The relevant text appears to be the following: Occasionally, the lila take a more ominous turn. Jacques Sandoz, a Swiss premie who heads Shri Hans Films, tells about an incident that took place at the Divine Residence in Los Angeles, where he held the end of a balloon between his teeth while Bal Bhagwan Ji stood on a balcony 40 feet away and shot at it with a BB gun to test his devotion. Another premie describes the time the Guru fired a pistol at a number of prized vases in the backyard of the L.A. Residence "to teach us the worthlessness of material possessions." First, I doubt the status of Rolling Stone magazine as an RS here. Then I am not as dead certain as I would like to be that "the Guru" refers to Maharaji rather than his pistol-happy brother Bal Bhagwan, the subject of the previous sentence described there as "testing the premie's devotion". Thirdly, our draft states, "A follower told a reporter ..." while the article itself merely says "another premie describes" without stating if that was a first-hand report made to the reporter or hearsay that he picked up. I haven't read that particular claim elsewhere, either. In total, I think this fails WP:REDFLAG for a WP:BLP. The mention that some vehicles were "reportedly bought tax-free due to the DLM's status as a church" I find inflammatory. To me, this passage reads like <vernacular> "The cheeky bastard! He got rich off his followers, and he didn't even have to pay sales tax. Let's hate him!" </vernacular> The fact is, if the U.S. government granted the DLM tax-exempt status, and the DLM used it, they were in their rights and we shouldn't be making a fuss over it because we don't like the DLM and are looking for ammunition to shoot them and Rawat down. At least this is how I will feel about it until and unless someone can demonstrate that there are reliable sources reporting that there was an investigation which found the DLM guilty of using its tax status inappropriately. A mere allegation that came to nought is irrelevant. Sources close to his mother said that his materialistic lifestyle was one of the reasons she disowned him: My impression was that most sources are agreed that Mataji and Rawat fell out over his marriage, not about his wealthy lifestyle – bearing in mind that the rest of the "Holy Family" lived quite as wealthily as Rawat himself, and fought tooth and nail for the Indian DLM assets! I think the whole thing is just the mother getting her boot in because she was pissed off. As it stands, we are in danger of presenting her as some sort of ascetic holy woman occupying the moral and religious high ground. That's not what happened. Apart from that, I think it's a good idea to start off with the scholarly sources and discuss what press material to include after that. Jayen466 12:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Could you get this started with a draft on this approach, Jaen? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC) I'm working on it. --Jayen466 20:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC) The current draft uses reliable sources. Are you saying that reliable sources aren't reliable? Which sources used in this draft aren't reliable, and why? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC) I am not referring at all about an issue related to the WP:RS guideline, although it will not be harmful for you to re-read it. Please re-read my proposed approach and let me know what you think. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC) I think that when scholars, writing in their area of expertise, conflict with non-scholars that the scholars, if writing in the mainstream, should always be given the preference. In this case none of the sources conflict with each other. I don't see anyone here asserting that the sources are incorrect. In most cases they are simply quoting the subject or his followers. It is important to give Rawat's view of the issue, as well as his followers and others. Those are significant viewpoints and must be included, per NPOV. Scholars tell us this is an important topic, and it's mentioned in even brief biographical sketches. It's given substantial treatment in the authoritative Current Biography Yearbook, I believe even greater weight than proposed here. I'm open to Momento's suggestion to include somewhere that "Knowledge is free", because I looked around and I don't see that assertion anywhere. The best place may be to the "Teachings" article, but if it makes Momento happier I wouldn't oppose adding it here too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC) The scholars are in obvious conflict with the reporters. Compare the language and emphasis. To scholars Rawat's wealth is a minor if interesting point. To the reporters, it's all they can see. And a significant viewpoint isn't the same as a popular one. Rawat enjoying ice cream made news around the world but is it significant, of course not. As for a reporter's expertise, Ted Morgan is quoted numerous times in this Proposal and he's the expert who had Rawat sitting on a 300 foot stage (nearly 100 feet higher than the Astrodome itself). Who's he quoting? It's like Chinese whispers, they all rehash the same stuff. Which is fine for the media but not for an encyclopedia.Momento (talk) 05:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC) None of the scholars were writing biographies of the subject. They were focused on some element of the subject's movement or teachings, and just gave short biographical sketches of the subject as background, or were writing encyclopedia entries, and gave short biographical sketches of the subject as one of many. Even so, most of them mention the matter or even describe it as a matter of considerable controversy. The authoritative Current Biography Yearbook devotes as much or more attention to it as is proposed here. The subject's own PR team saw it as a part of his public personna and it affectd the financial health and leadership of the movement. It is clearly an major topic, and is rightly regard as such by scholars and journalists alike. As for the 300 feet, that's clearly a printer's error for 30 feet. The New York Times is considered an impeccable source that we have already discussed several times before, and even gone to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard about. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC) The subject's own PR team? Don't you mean what a reporter claims the PR team saw? 50 members? I'm not that gullible. "affected the financial health and leadership of the movement."? Compared to him splitting from his mother and getting married Rawat's wealth was, and still is, irrelevant. After all it was his followers who showered him with money and gifts. The only people who think his wealth was an issue are the media looking for sales. And this is the problem. As long as sensationalist media reports are seen as unbiased, Wikipedia's credibility will suffer.Momento (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC) The split with his mother was partly due, she said, to his materialistic lifestyle. When the DLM was in severe debt he kept up hislifestyle, and the movement was required to shut down many operations, drop various plans, and was notably behind on its bills for years. As is reported by the scholars. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Any impartial person knows that Rawat took control of DLM because he disagreed with what his mother and brother were doing to it, including the Millennium financial disaster. And it wasn't until 16 year old Rawat chose his wife over his family, even knowing that he would lose control of his Indian assets, that his mother made her claims. Further research will reveal that much of the money given to Rawat was used to support DLM in paying debts caused by his mother and BBJ and Bob Mishler's and Robert Hand's grand plans. Followers were giving money to Rawat not DLM because it is Rawat who gives the gift of Knowledge not DLM. As many scholars have noted DLM was a bureaucratic mess and Rawat dismantled it, much to some organizers chagrin. Rawat's focus is on spreading Knowledge, anything that gets in the way will be removed and that, we can see, includes his family, organizations and public opinion. As 12 year old Rawat said to his followers "So, dear premies, one day you will have to sacrifice your social respect, so leave it now. What is there in that? One day all have to die, but what can happen if you die while meditating on God? Do not misunderstand my words. What else is there?". He doesn't care what the NYTimes says, it's a pity that so many do.[[10]]Momento (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Please feel free to make a draft out of that. Indicating were sources would be needed (I'm not saying I doubt all of it, but we have by now a tradition of very solid sourcing for anything we want to go into the article): Rawat took control of DLM because he disagreed with what his mother and brother were doing to it, including the Millennium financial disaster. It wasn't until 16 year old Rawat chose his wife over his family, even knowing that he would lose control of his Indian assets, that his mother made her claims. Further research will reveal that much of the money given to Rawat was used to support DLM in paying debts caused by his mother and BBJ and Bob Mishler's and Robert Hand's grand plans. Followers were giving money to Rawat not DLM because it is Rawat who gives the gift of Knowledge not DLM. As many scholars have noted DLM was a bureaucratic mess and Rawat dismantled it, much to some organizers chagrin. Rawat's focus is on spreading Knowledge, anything that gets in the way will be removed and that includes his family, organizations and public opinion. As 12 year old Rawat said to his followers "So, dear premies, one day you will have to sacrifice your social respect, so leave it now. What is there in that? One day all have to die, but what can happen if you die while meditating on God? Do not misunderstand my words. What else is there?". He doesn't care what the NYTimes says. (note that a YouTube link would normally not be seen as a viable reference in Wikipedia context) Note that much of the above is about intentions of the participants, which is the hard part to verify, and usually completely left out in scholarly sources (note that Schnabel, for instance, writes about that: from a scholar's perspective he doesn't care about the "intentions," as a sociological analysis is independent from that; Similarly "Bromley asserts that recent scholarship gives emphasis to social construct aspects of charisma,..."). And many of the intentions ascribed to participants above are in fact contradicted by the their own words. For instance, "Rawat dismantled [DLM], much to some organizers chagrin": Mishler's words rather seem to indicate the contrary: if he felt chagrin it was arguably regarding Rawat not doing that earlier, before they fell out. – My point is: if we are going to write about (for instance) Mishler's intentions, motivation or feelings we would (at least) be dangerously close to trespassing a few of Wikipedia's core content policies: scholarly research currently has hardly anything on the point; what more popular sources have on the point might be left out for not carrying enough weight, as an editorial discretion. What such participants said and did in public is less a problem: it is both covered by mainstream media and scholarly sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Uh? You really lost me on this one. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC) I think Francis' point may have been that what Momento wrote is far from acceptable as a draft, as it makes all kinds of unverifable assertions about the intentions and feelings of persons. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC) It's not a draft, I'm just pointing out what happened to any editor that doesn't know. Most of the material can be sourced but this whole Proposal is biased and should be dropped.Momento (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC) This is going nowhere fast The proposal I made above, which I repeat here could be a way to move forward: We have historical newspaper articles from 1972 to 1974, and a single clip from 1988. Most of these, with the exception of a few, are not from mainstream newspapers as per WP:V, and furthermore, we have scholarly sources on the subject that are superior and of later dates that summarize what could be considered primary sources (historical newspapers are primary sources). So, it is a much better use of sources to use the best sources available, which already make summaries of these, instead of inventing a summary here, by picking and choosing what to cite, and using selective quotes. My proposal is then: remove all quoted text summarize the scholarly sources first; and if after all this, there is something that is relevant and that has been missed by our scholarly sources, then go back and find the best of the mainstream newspapers and add what's missing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC) We've already done 2 and 3. If you think that this article should only be sourced from scholars then we've got a lot of cutting to do. Likewise the quotes. You haven't givien any reason why this paragraph should be treated differently from the rest of the article, or from other articles in Wikipedia. These are all excellent sources. No one has complained about single citation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Furthermore, I don't see where newspaper accounts are regarded by Wikipedia as primary sources. WP:OR says In general the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. WP:PSTS doesn't mention them. There's nothing particularly "historic" about these news sources. This appears to be another unique policy interpretation by Jossi. Jossi is alleging that newspapers are primary sources while Momento is claiming that they are tertiary sources ("It's like Chinese whispers, they all rehash the same stuff"). Both are wrong. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Historical newspapers are primary sources as these have a cultural context that is implied.[11] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC) I expected an impasse at this point, due to the gulf between expectations of agreed sources covering Rawat's lifestyle. This is why we had the discussion off the main article sandbox page. Jossi wouldn't directly debate the sources there, but requested to so only within the context of specific edits. Thus, we have this section 7 with specific edits. Savlonn (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Attempting to overcome the disagreement by going back to a focus on scholarly material simply won't work, as we have already discussed the NPOV necessity to cover the broad amount of solid material from the mainstream press. We can't ignore that going back to only covering scholarly material favors PR, due to the fact that most scholars were focusing on the religious and not personal/biographical notability of PR. Savlonn (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC) The way forward is as previously agreed: post edits here and either agree with them, or state specific reasons for disagreeing with the inclusion of source material. Where we still have an impasse, there are other options such as independent assessment of sources, or other ways forward as suggested by Steve. Savlonn (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC) I have made my arguments already, and will not accept a proposal to be shoved down my throat. In summary, here are some of my objections about the current drafts by Francis and Will Beback: Mixing apples with oranges. The fact that he took flying lessons when he was a teenager and the fact that he is now an accomplished pilot, does not have anything to do with "lifestyle" Lacks time reference. All press material is from a four year period, 1972 to 1976. Selective use of quotes. This is not a tabloid or a hatchet job but an encyclopedic article. We have excellent scholarly sources that summarize the popular views of these years, and we ought to use these. "which continued even during" - Leading, trying to make a point and that the movement appeared to exist only to support Rawat's "opulent existence". When actually the source says that "So far as I coud see" ... and many other nuances rendering these drafts to be unusable. Jaen and I have expressed the need to better utilize the scholarly sources we have first, and if anything is missing after we do that, then look at the best sources we have from the mainstream press (Newsweek, Time, NYT, etc.) to address missing aspects. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC) , due to the fact that most scholars were focusing on the religious and not personal/biographical notability of PR That is incorrect. The scholary sources, if you take the time to read them are most definitively addressing the aspects related to PR's lifestyle. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC) I'm glad that Jossi has finally, after many requests, given some specific issues about this draft. 1: The flying lessons are connected with the airplanes, awhich are very expensive items and were a part of his luxurious, vehicle-oriented lifestyle. I've also found a source in which Rawat says he learned to drive by 12. We might add that to complement the flying lessons to show that he had an early attraction to vehicles, which became a frequent metaphor in his parables, as noted by many sources. 2: The material would be placed in the "Coming of age" section, which covers that part of the 1970s. Some of the material wsa printed later, but that's the focus of the sources and the material. I don't see why further reference to dates is relevant. 3: The quotes are not selective. Rawat's statement about iving away his Rolls has been quoted frequently, perhaps as frequently as anything else he's said. The other quotes are from two spokesman, a mahatma, and a regular follower. They help give context and they give the viewpoints of followers and officials, which are significant and needed for NPOV. There are also quotes from a scholar, from his mother, and from former officials. Those are also important viewpoints. Jossi has been adamanet against having a "criticism" section, preferring instead to have critical material interwoven throughout the article. That's what this is. 4: I can rewrite that, but it's the point that Bromley and Shupe make. 5: I can rewrite that too. Please list any other specific objections so they can be addressed and so we can reach consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC) So you are saying that your draft is good, well no. It is not good. Compare your mishmash with what Bromley writes. Compare the tone, the attribution, the framing, and the context, with your "draft". That marriage also brought to a climax the rift between Ji and his mother in India. In his years in the United States, Ji had begun to undergo changes she did not approve, including a fashionable hairstyle, Western clothes, a luxurious lifestyle complete with mansion and limousines, and hippie vocabulary. p. 45 As a result of some overly ambitious projects designed to spread its message, Divine Light Mission has faced severe financial difficulties. Despite these problems the Guru Maharaj Ji was continued to maintain an extremely affluent lifestyle, complete with mansion, limousine, and expensive, fashionable clothing. According to some reports, during the mid-1970s the guru was receiving five hundred dollars per day for his personal expenses. Some premies, according to reports, decided their guru needed his own prviate Boeing 747 [sic], and Maharaj Ji responded with delight at the idea. However the gurus lavish lifestyle has been the source of considerable controversy and even defections among premies due to Divine Light Missoin's precarious financial condition. It is fair to conclude that Maharaj Ji comes closest to fitting the anticultists' stereotype of a leader living in luxury at the expense of his followers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC) They go way beyond what we're suggesting here. We can add his $500 a day allowance and the 747 jet if you think those are important. We can even add that they think he fits a stereotype of a cult leader, if you want. But those aren't in the proposals here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC) You insistence in ignoring my arguments is dully noted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC) I'm not ignoring any of your arguments. Please tell me which one I haven't addressed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 5, redux I've created Draft 5 to address Jossi's complaints above, specifically #4 & #5. Otherwise it's the same as Draft 4. You have not addressed anything with that edit, sorry. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Yes, I have. You complained about the lead sentence so I re-wrote it to be closer to the source: A source of controversy in the 1970s was Rawat's extremely affluent lifestyle, which continued during the DLM's financial difficulties. Here's the source, which you even quote above: As a result of some overly ambitious projects designed to spread its message, Divine Light Mission has faced severe financial difficulties. Despite these problems the Guru Maharaj Ji was continued to maintain an extremely affluent lifestyle... However the gurus lavish lifestyle has been the source of considerable controversy and even defections among premies due to Divine Light Missoin's precarious financial condition. How is that an inaccurate summary? Regarding the other point, the text now reads: Former officials of the DLM in the 1970s, including the founding president, the vice president, and a financial analyst, complained that money was increasingly diverted to Rawat's personal use,[90]and that the movement appeared to them to exist only to support Rawat's "opulent existence". So it clearly says that this was their view. How are those changes inadequate to addressing those two points? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC) We have: 40 sources from the press, 99% of these during three years 1972 to 1975 - Some of these 49 sources are duplicated information 18 scholarly sources most from 1976 and onward, including several from 2000 and onwards in which they address lifestyle issues How cannot be possible to summarize the scholarly sources on the subject first and see if there is anything they have missed? Why the reluctancy to address the concerns expressed by several editors? Why the insistence in obfuscating the fact that 99% of the sources you listed are from three years? Why the insistence in obfuscating the fact that some of these sources are dubious in the context of a BLP? Why? Many questions and no answers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Here's a list of the sources for Draft 5: "'You're a Perfect Master'", Newsweek November 19, 1973 "An East Indian Teen-Ager Say He Is God", Ken Kelley, Vogue March 1974 "BLISSING OUT IN HOUSTON", Francine du Plessix Gray, New York Review of Books December 13, 1973 "Boy guru weds Calif. woman, 24". Associated Press, Long Beach, Calif. Indepedent, May 22, 1974 "Gifts for a Guru" in Stars and Stripes, November 15, 1972. "Guru Tries to Take Control of Mission" in The Ruston Daily Leader, April 9, 1975: "Investigation under way into Guru's business activities" AP Jun 24, 1974 GREELEY (Colo.) TRIBUNE "MOTHER OUSTS 'PLAYBOY' GURU" in Los Angeles Times. Wednesday April 2, 1975, PART II, p. 6A "Oz in the Astrodome" Ted Morgan, New York Times, December 9, 1973 "Pretty Far-Out Little Dude" Henry Allen, Washington Post, September 14, 1971 "Seventeen-year-old guru likes pizza and sports cars", DEBORAH FRAZIER UPI Santa Fe, July 13,1975 THE NEW MEXICAN. "The guru who minds his mother", By MALCOLM N. CARTER, AP. 11/4/73 Stars and Stripes "Through a 'Third Eye' Comes The Divine Light", By PHIL HASLANGER (Of The Capital Times Staff), Capital times, 2/16/73 "When The Lord of All The Universe Played Houston". Richard Levine, RollingStone Magazine March 14, 1974 Bromley and Shupe 1981, p. 137 Current Biography Yearbook 1974 Database of pilots Downton 1979 Foss & Larkin 1978 Hunt, Stephen. Aternative Religions. Ashgate 2003 Larson, Bob. Larson's Book of Cults. Tyndale House Publications. 1982 Levine, Richard. "When The Lord of All The Universe Played Houston: Many are called but few show up" in Rolling Stone. Issue No. 156, March 14, 1974, pp 36-50: McKean, Lise. Divine Enterprise. University of Chicago Press, 1996. Melton, J. Gordon. Entry "DIVINE LIGHT MISSION", subtitle "Controversy" in Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America. Garland, 1986 (revised edition), ISBN 0-8240-9036-5 pp. 144–5 TIME, Apr. 07, 1975 [3] Who is Guru Maharaj Ji Which sources do you think are unreliable or dubious, and why? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Nice list, Will, so what? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC) You assert above that "some of these sources are dubious in the context of a BLP". Which ones? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC) I am referring to the list at the Lifestyle sandbox, which you are clearly using to assert prominence. My argument is that rather than pick and chose and make a judgment of what is notable in that list of sources, to rely on the scholarly sources that have studies the subject. Note that RS advises as that Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. (my highlight) So, now you know what I am referring to when I am asking to focus our attention on scholars rather that journalists. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Which scholar has studied the subject of Rawat's lifestyle? Are there any sources in Draft 5 you object to? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC) See Draft 6 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC) We're talking about Draft 5 here. Are any of these sources unreliable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Will's reply above was on top of mine, but I think its worth posting mine as well, so note this may be covering the same ground. 82.132.136.203 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Now we're getting somewhere. Thanks for the specific criticisms of these drafts - these can now be discussed. 82.132.136.203 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC) 1. Piloting aircraft. When I first read this, the first thing that came to my mind was John Travolta. Travolta also flies his jets on legitimate business trips. However, of course the subjective, emotional association is with a wealthy lifestyle. The other association that came to me is very high intelligence, discipline and maturity to gain a commercial rating at quite a young age. I am of course being totally subjective in my analysis here, but sometimes this is a valid approach when assessing a neutral biography. If I read a proposed quotation from a source, I will ask myself (and others through this forum) a) if my subjective interpretation of the material reasonably reflects that of a typical reader and b) if this is an accurate and neutral reflection of the subject and the intention of the author of the sourced material. In this case, I believe a) it does, and b) yes. As such, I assert that that this indeed is about lifestyle and does belong here. 82.132.136.203 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC) 2. Time reference. Agreed, but not a strong point (I understand he still flies now). However, this can be mitigated by placing text in appropriate section, so it is not a valid argument to omit this material.82.132.136.203 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC) 3. Selective use of quotes. Please be specific. 82.132.136.203 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC) 4. Bias (Leading) "which continued even during" . Fair criticism - can be re-written. 82.132.136.203 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC) 5. Omission of context "as far as I could see". Well, it is clear that it is the author's opinion, but I don't have a problem with this being explicitly stated. 82.132.136.203 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 6 Not complete, not polished, but just an example on how we can write about this based on the best sources we have on the subject, and without picking and choosing quotes for effect. It can be done, if editors are willing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC) The topic of that draft seems to be media coverage rather than Rawat. If you'd like to add that tho the media reception section it might be appropriate there. But the intent of this proposal is to address Rawat's lifestyle and the controversy and issues it raised. Draft 6 doesn't address that. Maybe it should be moved to Proposal 9. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Nope. This is material that describe PR's lifestyle issues and controversy as described in the media and reported by scholarly sources. It is neutral, it leaves us to scholars to assert notability, rather than your judgment of what is. 100 %better than all previous drafts, and I am not done yet. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC) You've never said which sources are "dubious". Please explain why you consider osme of the above sources to be unsuitable for a BLP. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC) This section is to discuss Draft 6. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Another specific complaint I have with this veriosn is over-attribtion. When a view that has been expressed by several sources is attributed to just one it makes it appear incorrectly that there is only one person making the assertion. For example, "...according to Melton, premies purchased an estate in Malibu into which the newly married couple moved..." Since we have numerous sources for this, it's inapproproiate to attribute it to just one writer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Removed over attribution on that sentence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC) And the others? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Opinions are always better attributed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC) If an opinion is held by five people then it's misleading to attribute it to only one. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC) This draft is very incomplete in that it does not give any details whatsoever about the lifestyle that caused the controversy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC) The details are well summarized by these scholars. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC) The scholars mention some of the cars, homes, and planes. How come this draft only mentions one house and ignores the rest? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC) It also totally omits the viewpoints of Rawat himself, of followers, of officials, and of former officials. those are necessary for NPOV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Added viewpoint of a former president as reported by bu scholar. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC) This proposal is fatally biased. It starts of with a POV which it cannot escape.Momento (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC) It is not finished yet, Momento. I intend to add counterpoints about the Mother and other issues. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 7 And another draft ... points that seem important to bring out are Rawat's age at the time, plus the fact that the cars were not all amassed in one location, but reflected his travel schedule. Since he flew from place to place and couldn't very well take his car with him, it makes some kind of sense that there would be a limousine at each location. The change in lifestyle, fashion sense etc. is not yet covered. (Also note that this draft would lose the helipad controversy.) Jayen466 23:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC) There are some good things in this version. But why are we losing the helipad controversy? That was negotiated and agreed upon previously. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC) The helipad is negotiable and can easily be put back in. Rumiton once advocated losing it, and I agreed; I didn't think it was of lasting significance to Rawat's bio. Jayen466 23:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Unless there are positive, explicit reasons to revisit a past agreement, I think it's a distraction from the discussion about other parts of this draft. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC) No prob, consider it reinstated, we can discuss that another time, if there is interest. Jayen466 00:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC) I always objected to the "helipad controversy" story. It has nothing to do with his notability and it is a trivial incident of no importance to the subject or our readers. It is incredible that a serious encyclopedia would devote a sentence in a BLP about a planning permission negotiation. It should be removed.Momento (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC) We talked about that at great length months ago and settled it. Let's focus on this proposal here and now. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Yes, we did talk about it at length and I objected at length about that whole section and how trivial it was.Momento (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC) How about including here the pilot's license, and maybe learning to drive at 12? Those seem relevant here. Otherwise I think it's pretty good. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Learning to drive at 12? This is an encyclopedia, when are we going to stop the trivia and talk about what makes the subject notable - he's been a speaker and teacher about inner peace from the age of 8. Everything else is a byproduct.Momento (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC) We give quite a bit of detail about the subject's youth, because his youth was notable. He frequently used cars, and to a lesser extent planes, in his parables. Learning to drive at 12 and to fly at 13 is unusual. Learning to fly is important enough that we already mention it in a "trivia" section at the end, and it's relevant to the ownership of the planes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC) This draft needs some more time context. It reads in the present when actually all that info about the Rolls and the Mercedes are all 1972-1974. I will not mix this stuff with the transport airline licenses that are much later in PR's life and are better presented separately as currently in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Four problems to start with: 1) the first sentence is ambiguous, making it sound like PR's wife's name is Claudia. 2) What is the significance in this paragraph of this sentence: "In July Rawat met with 8,000 followers in Copenhagen that marked his wife's first public appearance. Later that night Spanish premies serenaded the newly weds from the street below and were invited in by Marolyn for tea and cookies"? What does that have to do with his personal lifestyle? 3) The increased value of the Malibu home should be up in the paragraph where the home is talked about. 4) Jeanne Messer's quote is misleading, most boys have a fascination with technology, most do not have their own private jets and Rolls-Royces and Mercedes. -- Maelefique (talk) 05:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC) For my additions, I have fixed 1), the significance of 2) shows his personal lifestyle i.e. traveling to Denmark to meet followers, the number of followers, introducing his new wife to his followers, the friendliness of premies towards Rawat and his new wife and Marolyn and Rawat's reciprocation, all important indications of his lifestyle. As for 3) let's not forget that this is an encyclopedia not a real estate guide. No preference on Messner.Momento (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Point 3 was already in the proposal, I think it just makes more sense to keep the references about it together, I'm not suggesting adding additional "real estate guide" material. -- Maelefique (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Momento, I'm not sure about the last two edits; I think we're straying a little too far from the cited sources. --Jayen466 12:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Wait a minute. Why are people editing each other's drafts? This is listed at the top of the page for each proposal. "User should...Not change the wording of drafts, they should add a new draft with the changed wording." This is how Steve set it up. and btw, where is Steve? Is he still our mediator? Sylviecyn (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Yep, I'm still the mediator. I've still been watching the mediation, but I've been doing more article work recently in preparation for an RFA, and because these articles won't improve themself :). Steve Crossin (contact) 14:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Apologies, I forgot.Momento (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC) I looked away for a few hours, and wow, how a proposal can die a flaming death...Might as well start a proposal 8 now, 7 has become PR fluffery and probably unfixable (and there's still no helipad...). -- Maelefique (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Rolled back, helipad inserted. Still timeline problems though, which will need some more thinking about. Jayen466 19:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC) That's better. I don't seen anything to object to in this draft. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC) This draft suffers from bias. You can't just ignore other important incidents of the time 74/75 i.e. Rawat was travelling, his message was spreading, he was paying for staff and travel, he was introducing his wife to his followers and the casual and friendly nature of his relationship with the premies.Momento (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC) This proposal doesn't cover the subject's entire life, nor everything he did in the 1972-1974 period. It covers one aspect of the subject's life. The introduction of his wife doesn't appear to have been notable. The relationship with his followers is a very different topic, I suggest starting a fresh proposal to cover that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC) If this proposal is about his lifestyle then it needs to cover it all, not just money.Momento (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC) "His message was spreading" is not about his lifestyle. "Introducing his wife to his followers" is more closely connected to his marriage than his lifestyle, and that's in a separate paragraph. "His relationship with the primies" is also unrelated (and not always so friendly). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC) You are talking about inserting this material into the "Coming of Age" section which covers a period from Dec 73 to the 80s. These incidents occurred during that period and are therefore legitimate inclusions. You can't just say, let's only include stuff that mentions money, it is complete violation of BLP, bias, fairness, undue weight etc.Momento (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Those matters may be suitable for other places in this section, but they aren't related to this proposal. Thre is nothing about Draft 7 that violates any WP policies or guidelines. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 8 Momento: Please do not edit other's proposals. I have moved your edits to Draft 8. Let Jaen work on his draft 7. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 9 This looks fine to me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC) To recap, this draft was wrttien by Jayen466. It is based on Draft 7, also written by Jayen466, except that it incorporates mostly unchanged text from the entire section so as to present the material more chronologically. I think it's fair, it atttributes opinions, it relies primarily on scholars, and it id not much longer than the existing material. Does anyone have a specific, significant objection to it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Yes. Jaen: Please look into incorporating other material that is missing, for example some of the sourced material in draft 10. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Also missing is the framing of the cars and airplanes to the appropriate time period. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC) There is an "over that period" after the sentence beginning "Throughout the early and mid-1970s". Does that do enough to locate it in time? Jayen466 16:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Source [149] is contested. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Source 149 is in Draft 10; which one do you mean? Jayen466 16:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC) missing Pylarzyk Pilarzyk described in 1978 how media accounts by youth culture publications focused on the "materialistic fixations" and the physical condition of the guru ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC) I've added a passage summarising Pilarzyk. Jayen466 16:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC) missing Between the years 1972 and 1975, the mainstream media and the popular press focused on the apparent luxurious lifestyle, as well as making negative comments about Rawat's physical appearance. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Between Pilarzyk (now added) and what we have, I think this is now covered already. missing additional info from Melton. (a) he does not speak of the "mission", but of the "organization"; (b) he says that through the late 1980s there was no further controversy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC) The late 80s really belong to the next section of the article; could we add that comment there? I've changed "Mission" to "organization" as per Melton. Jayen466 16:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC) That addition can be a good link up text for the next section, so I am arguing for its inclusion at the end of this section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC) What is the dispute over Brown, Chip, Parents Versus Cult: Frustration, Kidnapping, Tears; Who Became Kidnappers to Rescue Daughter From Her Guru, The Washington Post, February 15, 1982? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Here is a link to the bio of award-winning journalist Chip Brown.[12] Again, what is the complaint about this source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC) With the exception of the phrase "residues of belief in", which isn't the best image (perhaps change it to "a greatly reduced belief in" or "a waning belief in"?) I think proposal 9 is pretty good. Definitely better than proposal 10 as it stands now. -- Maelefique (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Well, I know Downton's a source, but it's not a factual account concerning 1976. The change in the presentation of Prem Rawat to the public beginning early 1976, had nothing to do with what premies believed, it was purely cosmetic. He was being presented to the public as a spiritual leader and inspirational speaker, but that's definitely not was what was being taught to aspirants (interested newcomers who were working towards receiving K). I know this because I received Knowledge session in January 1976 in Connecticut, and among the many prerequisites for being selected to be taught the K techniques by mahatmas or initiator/instructors, was a solid belief in Maharaji's divinity as the Lord incarnate, and anyone who expressed doubts about Rawat's divinity simply was not selected. Arti was still sung, the Knowlege oath was in full use, and etc., etc. So resurgence of devotion came at the end of 1976 when Rawat signalled to us that it was okay to worship him openly again. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Also, I'm puzzled as to why Cagan is being used as a source in a controversial proposal. Maharaji may have moved to Miami Beach after the fire on the Malibu home, but by early 1979, the DECA B707 project was in full operation, ready to acquire the B707 and expand operations considerably, which it did by summer, 1979. He moved to Miami Beach to oversee the operation of the reconfiguration of his first private jet, and by the summer of 1979 his fleet of luxury automobiles was transported, via tracter trailer, from Malibu to the DECA project where the automobiles were kept in a large area in which his private crew of auto mechanics worked on them. The Mercedes 600 stretch limo, Maserati, and the Rolls Royce Silver Ghost, were among among many, many gorgeous, expensive cars, which Rawat drove in and out of that place frequently for fun. They weren't only purchased to transport him to and from speaking events. It was the Mercedes 600 that sat in the middle of the general warehouse area while its seats were being reupolstered by the "seamstress" crew that was also working on the B707 seating refurbishing. It was surrounded by velvet ropes so no one but the crew could ever touched it. So you have an eyewitness account, here, and yeah, I know I'm not a source, but at least we should use sources close to the facts. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Fascinating, but useless information. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Jossi, would you please say what your objection to the Washington Post source is? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Sure. WP:REDFLAG issues we have discussed at length. There is no need to allow the inclusion of derogatory material voiced by people that stated that His former officers claimed the Guru had 'a sadistic streak,' and that practices Maharaj Ji employed, theoretically to subdue the ego, included 'stripping devotees, pouring abrasive chemicals on their bodies and into their mouths, administering drugs, having them beaten with a stick or thrown into swimming pools. Nonsense that should not be repeated here. Given the nature of that material, we should not include it, neither other material from the same article just because is less derogatory. We have better sources, let's use these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 10 Momento, I remember noting down in my abandoned draft page that Mishler was fading from the movement in 1976, resigning officially in January 1977. Jonestown was in November 1978, so about two years must have elapsed between Mishler leaving the movement and his speaking to the press about his fears. Jayen466 22:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Correct. I'm tidyi9ng up the chronology bit by bit.Momento (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC) While previously-allowed material referenced to Cagan is best kept for the purpose of maintaining consistency, adding more material cited only to that source is not going to get a consensus. If editors want to discuss Cagan I suggest we do so on one of the mediation pages. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Many of the sources used so far are the only source for the material used i.e. Brown, Chip, Parents Versus Cult. I agree that single sources of contentious material may need to be removed i.e.Chip Brown but the Cagan material isn't contentious.Momento (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Yes it is contentious. For example, we have multiple sources that tell us Hans Ji was wealthy. So using Cagan to assert that he was poor is contentious. Furthermore, Cagan is one of the main reasons we're in mediation, and the use of that source is in itself contentious. Chip Brown is writing in the Washington Post, one of the most prestigious newspapers in the United States. They aren't comparable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC) I'm sure many people go through various levels of financial health. You can be poor and then become successful. Rawat came to the West with a few dollars ands look what happened to him. They aren't mutually exclusive. And if you recall Cagan was decided to be an independent and respected biographer and MightyRiver Press independent from both Cagan and Rawat. Cagan is fine as a source.Momento (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC) No, that decision was never made. Cagan is a disputed source and new material using it as the source is not going to gain consensus. If editors want to discuss Cagan I suggest using one of the mediation pages for it. It's overdue for a settlement since it was among the first items onthe list of things to mediate. Let's leave Cagan out of this proposal and stick to undisputed sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC) If you look at the RFC re Cagan as a reliable source [13], 3 out of 4 independent editors said it was OK and fourth was ambivalent. Thanks.Momento (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC) If those editors want to get involved here then they can make their points. Among editors of this article, the source is contentious. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC) We know anti-Rawat editors don't like Cagan because of the wealth of info contained in her book, that's why we asked non-involved, independent editors if Cagan was a reliable source according to Wiki rules not someone's POV. And she is. Anti-Rawat editors cannot limit sources that contradict their POV.Momento (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC) None of those editors actually looked at the book, so far as I can tell. I wasn't particularly opposed to it until I'd read it. Having read it, it's clearly unacceptable. We can hold a second RfC, or post to WP:RSN to resolve the matter. I suggest that we avoid getting into that now. There's nothing we need to add from that source. No scholar includes the information from her, the standard that other editors seem to prefer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC) amazon UK says that a new edition of the book is due to come out this month. Unfortunately, it doesn't say which publisher it will be published by. Does anyone know if and how this edition will be different? I was thinking of buying a copy, but if this edition is updated, then I'd wait until it's out. (It appears this is just the UK edition, published by Pragma Press.) Will, no scholar using her may be a reflection of the book only having been published last year. It remains to be seen whether it will be used in future scholarly writing, and how it will be assessed. What did you think are the problems with it that make it unusable? --Jayen466 18:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Firstly, it is irrelevant what the book contains provided it conforms to Wiki policies and guidelines. If it meets the criteria, it's a reliable source. Secondly, your opinion and mine are seen as biased, that's why we had independent editors comment. And thirdly, no scholar includes the information from her for the very good reason that no scholars have published anything since her book was published. It is a unique and valuable resource.Momento (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC) This draft looks promising. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC) This sentence doesn't sound right at all. Following the loss of his family's support Rawat, who never charged for teaching Knowledge or for his talks was now dependent on his Western followers for income for himself and his work It implies that Rawat wasn't being supported by DLM or his devotees prior to the family split which is incorrect and that's not what the source says. Which source states that his mother was supporting him prior to that time? It's likely DLM -- U.S. and India was supporting the whole family. Rawat's not charging for Knowledge has little or nothing to do with his lifestyle or how/why he received gifts and money. It was/is his divinity and "Lord of the Universe" status, believed by devotees, that got him the money, support, and gifts he requested through tithing, private donations to him personally, and fundraising. This sentence seems to imply he was left destitute when his mother disowned him when she disowned him after all because of his extravagant lifestyle. Otherwise I like draft10.  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 02:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC) do you have any objections to Draft 9? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC) The distinction we are drawing is between pre and post marriage Rawat. For 8 years pre-marriage he had the support of his family and DLM India, the biggest and longest established helping organization. And post marriage Mata Ji still held DLM UK and US DLM was burdened with debt. Rawat was entirely dependent on Western premies for support. The fact that he has never charged for Knowledge or his talks is crucial, he has nothing to sell. He only gives it away and relies on the recipients to value the gift and support the giver.Momento (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC) The material about his changing financial situation may be worthwhile, but the "there's no charge for Knowledge" assertion does not belong in the middle of a biography. It should be somewhere, probably in the "Teachings" article and/or the DLM/EV articles. Wherever it goes, it needs to be balanced by the other views of the matter, such as reported in these sources: The demands on the premies seemed endless. Now Maharaj Ji needed another airplane, the jet they bought him last year was already inadequate. Two hundred thousand dollars had to be raised in a matter of weeks. Sandy and Mark and their two children joined the other premies in a massive fund-raising campaign during which all of their time and enrgy was spent in collecting money that was sent to California. When Sandy complained to the local representative that devotion seemed to be measured according to one's ability to raise funds, she was told that a perfect devotee coujld show her love for the Lord through many forms of service and those who were lazy and unworthy were those who made false distinctions between spiritual devotion and other types of service to the one true Lord on the planet earth. [Jacobs 1989 p.22] The first step was for everyone to take all the money out of his pockets, present it at the foot of the altar and express eternal gratitude and devotion to Guru Maharaj Ji. "If all you have is a check, sign it so that it can be cashed," instructed the mahatma. One boy was found to be holding out enough for his bus fare home. "What if Guru Mahrark Ji doesn't want you to go home?" asked the mahatma. [...]He gave us a greeting to be used in addressing other premies and passed out pieces of paper with his name and address. "Send your worldly possessions here," he said. "Do you love Guru Maharaj Ji, or do you love your money?" "The Cult of Guru Maharaj Ji" Jonathan Rawson, The New Republic, November 17, 1973 p17-18 NPOV requires both views, and those are better presented elsewhere. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Fascinating but useless anecdotal account of unnamed people. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Not useless at all. One is printed in a respected periodical, and the other is in a scholarly book. Both are perfectly reliable sources. And there are others with similar stories. Any assertion that there is no charge for Knowledge has to be balanced with the assertions that money was expected from devotees. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Downton also talks about how donations were expected, and people were "encouraged" to give up their material possessions. Fascinating but useless? That may be the case for a lot of the text on this page, but not in this case. -- Maelefique (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC) The statement "Described as a "lavish hilltop estate" in the press and a "little house" by the premies" doesn't have a proper source that I can see, where is the support for the "little house by the premies" part? It doesn't appear to be referenced by the footnotes provided.Also I still see no point in the paragraph that talks about introducing his wife and inviting people in for cookies. That is not what this paragraph is about. -- Maelefique (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC) I would not support the "little house" insertion without the text making it clear that this was (presumably) tongue-in-cheek (and even then we should not make tongue-in-cheek comments). Judging from the pictures I have seen, it is not a "little house" by any stretch of the imagination. Jayen466 23:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC) It was a little house in 1974 when it was purchased. I presume the house you've seen is that one that was build in the 90s after the other was demolished.00:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC) There is a picture in the 1979 LA Times article (the one that says it was bought for him and his two children). When I hear "little house", I picture something else, sorry. Jayen466 08:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC) The mention of the couple being serenaded and the serenaders being invited for tea and cookies is over the top in my estimation; I think we are better off without that. Jayen466 23:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC) It makes an appropriate contrast to all the "money" issues that this section focuses on.Momento (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC) While I agree it would be nice to have some content that is not about the money, this isn't it. Jayen466 08:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC) The claim that Mataji was the "patron" appears unsourced. (And shouldn't that be matron ;-) in any case?) At any rate, did she not gain legal control only after a lawsuit fought against Prem Rawat? Jayen466 23:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Very good Jayen. The source for the matron is Cagan p 205. But it is obvious anyway. Rawat became Guru at 8, he couldn't control anything. Other sources talk of Mata JI controlling DLM UK and Rawat's followers having to start a new organization. And the 1975 court case was initiated by BBJ to which Rawat raised a counter claim but both were dropped without result (Cagan 208)Momento (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Right, the lawsuit was dropped, and Rawat left the field to Satpal for several years. Also mentioned in a People Weekly Magazine article. --Jayen466 08:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC) He does not see himself as bound by conventional beliefs or practices of any institutionalized religion or tradition-honored worldview. He is essentially an iconoclast who plots his route by pragmatic decisions to meet the demands and challenges that occur in his public career as a teacher striving to convince people of the value of self-knowledge. I think this would at the very least require attribution (mainly to Geaves, presumably?). I also don't think it fits into this section on Rawat's teenager years. Geaves wrote in 2004; the man he characterises is the adult Rawat, is it not? --Jayen466 23:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Correct. Doesn't fit chronology.Momento (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Rawat tried to heal the growing rift with the Mission but in August Bob Mishler, co-founder of DLM in the United States and Rawat parted ways. The sentence is unsourced, and "the growing rift with the Mission" comes rather out of the blue – what rift? what caused it? when did it begin? rift between whom specifically? I have trouble following the narrative here. Jayen466 23:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Cagan page 213. The rift started after Millennium and made worse when the DLM organizers told Rawat not to come to the office. THere are other sources Downton page 186.Momento (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Okay. Jayen466 08:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC) By the end of the 70s DLM, while growing little in the United States with 10,000 to 12,000 active members, has expanded significantly in Southern Asia, the South Pacific and South America I think the tense is wrong, it should be had expanded. Jayen466 00:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Correct.Momento (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC) In the first para, the Foss & Larkin quote still needs a reference (Worshiping the Absurd). Jayen466 00:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Correct. Worshipping the Absurd 'The Negation of Social Causality among the Followers of Guru Maharaj Ji.' Article by Daniel Foss and Larkin in Sociological Analysis, 1978. Not sure of page number.Momento (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC) By 1975 Rawat's message was available in 58 countries on six continents but the 16 year old was constantly criticized by the media for his age, his diet, his physical appearance and the gifts showered on him by his adoring followers. Sourced to Downton (and generates a ref error). Would you have a page number? --Jayen466 00:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC) I'll check on this. Thanks for all the good work.Momento (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Pleasure. Sorry the latest effort didn't rank with that; but it was a good-faith attempt to summarize Cagan, and my understanding was that Rawat is comfortable with his humanity, and has actually fought for it. But in the present, overall climate of the article, I can see it didn't come off. Jayen466 08:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 11 Incorporates a paragraph summarising Pilarzyk, including mention of premies' responses to media reporting, other changes discussed under Draft 9, plus some material from Draft 10. --Jayen466 16:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC) A couple of points: It says "reports in U.S. papers..." but there were also reports in U.K. papers. I believe the Indian press was also criticial of the subject. Also, it says "Rawat, who never charged fees for his talks or for teaching Knowledge,..." and that is an imcomplete statement of the situtation (see above). I suggest leaving it out to avoid getting into a lengthy aside about the finances of the DLM and the expectated contributions by devotees. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC) I hadn't seen the above discussion until after I posted this draft. Do we have any UK newspaper articles? I wasn't in the UK at the time, and haven't done any research in that regard as yet. (Don't know anything about European reporting, either.) Jayen466 16:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC) See Talk:Prem Rawat/Lifestyle for sources on this topic. The Daily Mail had a lot to say about the materialism. I've seen some indirect reference to negative Indian press coverage too. Rather than detailing all that it can be fixed by just omitting "U.S.". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Noted. Removed US, removed reference to not charging. --Jayen466 16:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC) I like the approach of Draft 11. It needs work, but I hope this version or similar can be be accepted. I particularly like the balance between the perceived reasonable criticism of PR's "luxurious" lifestyle, with the perceived unreasonable criticism relating to to his physical appearance, etc. This paints the picture that whilst the mainstream press of the 70s did (arguably fairly) criticize him for his lifestyle, there was also some blatantly unfair and discriminatory (physical appearance) criticism. I am really hoping that all parties can accept that notable references to his lifestyle (cars, planes, etc) need to be included for balance, along with clear indications that some media criticism was unfair and discriminatory. Savlonn (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC) I agree with the principle that either reference to finances are omitted (e.g. PR not charging for 'the knowledge') or that if this statement is included, it is balanced with references to premies being expected to financially contribute. Savlonn (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC) I agree Savlonn that media criticism of Prem Rawat's appearance was unfair and it was very petty, too. People can't help what body shape they inherit from their parents and I don't think it's necessary to include those types of comments in his biography. It detracts from more serious issues. Sylviecyn (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Relation with the press is a typical "reception" topic, hence User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal6#Media perceptions - which makes use of the Pilarzyk source, exactly the same paragraph as summarized by Jayen (proposal 6 is the "Reception" section proposal). Indeed, I would keep that out of the biographical narrative, and not unbalance the article as a whole by over-using a single paragraph of a scholarly article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Requesting mediator intervention. Incivility levels are rising again. Then I'm not talking about the s***t expression in one of the sections above, but ultimatums in the sense of "This stays here or we remove all of it anywhere in the article" are not a form of civil discussion. The Pilarzyk paragraph treats press articles as many from the period we treat in the "Leaving India" section, as from the period treated in the "Coming of age" section. Since Pilarzyk's treatment is without distinction for both periods, it would be difficult to cut it in two halves for each of the Wikipedia article sections. Thus, it makes more sense to treat this in the "Reception" section, as it is about a typical "reception" topic. Pilarzyk is very useful, I never said otherwise. Don't forget I got the Pilarzyk quote in Wikipedia (not the reference, but the quoted text of the paragraph we're now summarizing), and was the first to use it for proposed article text. I also never implied I thought it the next best thing since sliced bread. So the "This is amazing, suddenly Pylarzik [sic] is not useful anymore here,..." comment below is needlesly inflammatory. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC) This is amazing, suddenly Pylarzik is not useful anymore here, but useful in other sections? This stays here or we remove all of it anywhere in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC) The press coverage of that time made these comments showing the inherent bias and misunderstanding of the time. It may be needed for context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC) I can see the potential overlap with Proposal 6, the details of which I wasn't aware of. What do you think, Will? --Jayen466 23:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC) I don't see any parts of Draft 6 that would benefit this draft. What parts are folks thinking of? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC) We're talking about Proposal 6 (not Draft 6). The present paragraph in Draft 11, starting "Besides Rawat's "materialistic fixations", media reports ..." summarises a source that is also summarised in User:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat/Proposal6#Draft_2 Jayen466 08:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC) It is getting there, but it misses important information about these years. Jaen: Please see if you can incorporate some text from this draft on Proposal 6: According to James V. Downton, many people were amazed at the mass following the 13-year-old guru attracted during 1971-73. He noted that most were young people from the counterculture, and they accepted him as a "Perfect Master" despite his youth. Melton describes his arrival in the West as being met with some ridicule, but agrees that he attracted an extraordinary amount of interest from the young adults open to his message. Downton observed that from his early beginnings Prem Rawat appealed to his followers to give up the 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. Ron Geaves, one of the earliest Western students of Prem Rawat who later became a Professor of Religion in the UK states that Prem Rawat has been successful since he left India in 1971, establishing his teachings in over eighty countries, and cites that his original vehicle, the Divine Light Mission, was described as the fastest growing new religious movement in the West. Rawat was interviewed in 1973 on the The Merv Griffin Show. The first question asked was related to his youth, and to people putting their faith in him despite his age. The 15-year-old Rawat answered that it was not a question of faith but a practical experience. Griffin's other questions also referred to his age, asking what kind of experience can a 15-year-old have, to which Rawat responded that this particular experience is unrelated to age. According to sociologist Pilarzyk the youth culture response — mainly from decidedly leftist political ideologies — was somewhat ambiguous, combining indifference with some instances of overt hostility. Pilarzyk mentioned that these criticisms usually focused on what they perceived as phoniness of the "blissed-out premies", and referring to the "hocuspocus" aspects of the meditation, and the "materialistic fixations" and physical condition of the guru. These accounts are described by Pilarzyk as being quite negative and full of distortions from the DLM's adherents point of view, which drew responses from them that varied from bewilderment and amusement to extreme defensiveness. Positive comments came from youth culture "folk heroes" as anti-war activist as Rev. Daniel Berrigan, radical lawyer William Kunstler, and singer-songwriter Cat Stevens. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Will have a look at this and the next point tomorrow. --Jayen466 23:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Sorry for the delayed response. The first paragraph does not really belong in this section, chronologically. The years 1971–1973 are covered in the "Leaving India" section, so the proposed passage should rather be added there. The second paragraph you propose also belongs into the previous section, chronologically, since the main growth phase of the DLM was 71-73. To the extent that Geaves refers to developments up to and including the present, this could go into Reception, but it makes little sense in a "Coming of Age" section that is supposed to cover the years 1973–1980. The third para is just on the borderline, datewise, but I would prefer beginning the Coming of Age section with either his marriage or his taking control of the DLM, so again, probably better under "Leaving India". The last paragraph has largely been incorporated. Generally, I feel the biography part should have a clean chronological structure. Come to think of it, it would probably make sense if we added years to each subsection of the Prem Rawat article, just so we don't lose sight of what decade we're in. (So if we added years, the "Leaving India" subheader would become "Leaving India (1971–1973)". "Coming of Age" would be "Coming of Age (1973–1980)".) Jayen466 19:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Besides the Malibu estate, Rawat had homes in London, New York and Denver;[107] he had two planes, sports cars and motorcycles at his disposal, a Rolls-Royce awaited his arrival in London, and a chauffeured Mercedes-Benz 600 was on hand in Denver, all of them said to be gifts from disciples. Propose to change to: Press reports from 1972-1974, describes Rawat's Malibu estate, and homes in London, New York and Denver;[107] he had two planes, sports cars and motorcycles at his disposal, a Rolls-Royce awaited his arrival in London, and a chauffeured Mercedes-Benz 600 was on hand in Denver, all of them said to be gifts from disciples at the time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC) That would be over-attribution. First, the existence of the homes, planes, and cars is not an opinion that needs to be attributed. Second, scholars and press reports from other years also report the existence of the homes, planes, and cars. If Jossi is really serious about this we'd have to attribute every sentence in this article, which would be ridiculous. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Described as a "lavish hilltop estate" in the press-- Propose to change to: Described as a "lavish hilltop estate" in a press report ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Correct, if, as I believe is the case, we only have one press report that refers to it in those terms. Jayen466 23:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC) It was described in similar terms in many reports. It would be misleading to make it appear that the description was limited to one source. We could list all the different terms, but that may be excessive. The existing language is sufficient. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Either find a way to describe it in general terms, but if you use quoted text it needs to be attributed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Opinions are not fact: Besides Rawat's "materialistic fixations", media reports often focused on his physical appearance. Propose change to Besides what was described as Rawat's "materialistic fixations", media reports often focused pejoratively on his physical appearance and his age. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC) I would object to this change. The use of the word "pejoratively" assumes facts we do not have, and biases the article with words intended to cause an emotional response to the sentence. it is not NPOV. -- Maelefique (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Oh no, no, no. There are plenty of such sources and this is not NPOV. Read the list of sources and you will see that this is a good summary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC) "Pejoratively" is an opinion. We'd have to attribute it to Jossi. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC) We could say "often criticized him for his age and physical appearance". That is covered by Pilarzyk. Jayen466 08:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC) So implemented: "Besides reporting on his perceived materialistic fixations, the media often criticized Rawat for his age and physical appearance" Jayen466 08:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Saying no 3 times, does not make it NPOV, neither does phrasing your opinion as fact. It is not a good summary. Read the list of sources, you'll see why. -- Maelefique (talk) 03:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC) I will say it 4 times or as many times I think it necessary. The sources are there for you to read. So read them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Welcome back to grade 3 everyone... hey, if I say it five times, do I win? Childish. The sources are there for you to read. So read them. Your suggested summary is NOT NPOV.-- Maelefique (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC) When did you made any useful comments and proposals? Last time you did any research?. Zero so far. When you have, then talk to me about childish behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC) As if you didn't know how to look up my edits on your own, how many samples would you like me to provide for you? And while I'm wasting my time doing that, what other non-NPOV material are you going to try and shove down people's throats (your phrase, not mine)? Since you can't admit you're wrong, are you just trying to change the subject now? And hopefully you realize that you just said making useful comments and proposals gives people the right to be childish...No wonder we don't agree on so many things... -- Maelefique (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Age is a relevant aspect that should be added, agreed. The materialistic fixations were in quotation marks, but I don't mind adding "described as" (or perhaps "perceived as", as we're summarising Pilarzyk rather than press) to make POV attribution clearer. Jayen466 23:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC) We've desriobed his age, we haven't desribed his physical appearance. If we're going to comment on the comments about it then we need to say what they comments were. They weren't describing a scar or a deformity, which isn't clear from the text proposed here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC) We are saying that numerous sources where critical without getting into details, and it is approriate for context to denote that these reports did not not only fixated on the lifestyle but on his physical appearance and his age. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC) In the early 1980s, there was an ongoing controversy around a helipad on the Malibu estate Propose to change to In the early 1980s, there was a neighborhood dispute around a helipad on the Malibu estate ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC) I object to this change. It was not a neighbourhood dispute, the neighbours were involved, and so was the city council, it was talked about at city council meetings, this is not some dog barking late at night that some neighbour was annoyed at. It was definitely a controversy. -- Maelefique (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC) FWIW, it was referred to as a "neighborhood dispute" in the LA Times (Ex-Guru seeks to expand his heavenly rights, April 11 1985). Jayen466 20:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC) For this article it's a red herring. I have just received final local government approval to build a larger-than-regulations-suggest workshop on a hill on my property. I had to make concessions to council and assurances to neighbours to get it through. It's normal, it's the way things are done in the real world. This tells us nothing about the subject of this article, and its inclusion makes insinuations unworthy of an encyclopedia. Rumiton (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC) I tend to agree. See #Draft 7 above, it's been in and out. The trick is to establish consensus. --Jayen466 17:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC) Have no problem with that either. Perhaps we should add "ongoing" back in though, since it played out over a number of years. --Jayen466 23:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC) We already agreed on this material months ago. I don't see what is wrong with the existing text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Are we going to continue the error that Rawat's wife was a secretary?Momento (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC) I have no idea where the claim that she was a secretary came from. If it's wrong it needs to be fixed. Are there sources one way or the other? Jayen466 22:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Probably from a reliable source but she was an air hostess as correctly reported by Cagan.Momento (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC) There are numerous reports that the wife was a stewardess and Rawat's secretary: His marriage to his American secretary, almost 10 years his senior, has also been frowned upon in the popular press and by the Guru's own family. The devotees counteract this by depicting him, his wife and children as a kind of holy family, an example of what lies in store for many premies. [Saliba 1980] "16-Year-Old Guru Maharaj Ji Weds His Blonde Secretary, 24" Los Angeles Times; May 21, 1974; "Guru, 16, marries secretary" AP Tues.. May 21, 1974 Greeley Tribune And so on. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC) A good example of how bad most news reports are.Momento (talk) 04:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC) And allow only criticism? Of 25 lines in this draft only two about what he was actually doing that made him notable - touring and talking about inner peace and giving Knowledge. What a disgrace.Momento (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC) How many press sources are solely devoted to those topics? If it weren't for the controversies, etc, he wouldn't be notable at all. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC) There we go! Finally we get toknow what you think of the subject and the obvious antagonistic bias with which you have been editing all along. Whatever happened to "I am a neutral and non-involved editor"? The fact that an hostile press made a big deal of someone they did not understand, and in the context of the 1970's means only that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC) You have just demonstrated why Wikipedia says " Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist". By only focusing on "controversies", this article becomes a mirror image of the sensationalist reporting. That's why this article needs material from less sensational sources.Momento (talk) 04:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC) As you know, most of that draft is simply what the present article contains right now. And unless we can arrive at an understanding that Cagan is okay, we are probably short on sources for his non-press-reported activities. (FWIW, I have ordered the Cagan bio.) Jayen466 23:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC) In the inerests of continuity, and of keeping this proposal limited, I don't object to retaining the Cagan material already in the article, material which we've previously discussed. But after having actually read the book I don't believe it's suitable for use as a source for anything except Cagan's opinions. If folks want to press the point we can discuss it elsewhere. But let's not seek conflict. I changed one of the early drafts to omit Macgregor who another editor wanted to use. Let's show the same discretion with Cagan. Let's seek consensus not conflict. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC) I disagree. There is absolutely nothing wrong in using Cagan for non-contentious material. Nothing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC) We had an RFC about Cagan and three independent editors said Cagan was fine, and one editor was ambivalent. [14]. Cagan is a reliable source.Momento (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC) The RFC does not say Cagan is a reliable source, and there are serious questions raised in the RFC which we do not have answers to. If you limit your reading to non-involved editors, you can see that clearly, no consensus was reached, and there are problems with the Cagan material. -- Maelefique (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC) The RFC does "not" say anything. But three independent editors who responded did say that they reject the view that Cagan was unreliable.Momento (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC) They didn't say that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC) RFC question = Should a biographical book by Andrea Cagan be considered an unreliable source on the basis that the publisher is a small publisher and has published only one book? RFC editor = 1) With over a dozen books published by reputable publishers (Morrow, Berkley, Warner), I'm not sure why a having a new publishing house suddenly makes her work unreliable; nor can I think of any cases where an author is considered a reliable source except for some of the author's books. RFC editor = 2) a reliable author doesn't suddenly become unreliable simply by being published by a new publishing house. RFC editor = 3) it has been general practice in the past to assume that books published by non-vanity publishers are reliable, unless evidence is presented otherwise.Momento (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC) There is more material about Rawat's activities in 1974-1980, and we ought to present that as well and in a much larger proportion than we have now. I will dig up some sources, but Cagan can be used as this is not "contentious" material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Cagan is a disputed source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Not for non contentious subjects. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Yep. In re-reading this long section the unbalance is pretty evident. This proposal needs considerable work by all involved to make it balanced. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Jaen: There is good material from Melton and others that Momento just added to draft 10, that you may want to consider adding to Fraft 11, in addition to the other suggestions I made above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Jayen, several of Jossi's suggestions above are obviously detrimental to the draft, please read the comments above before reducing your work to something less. -- Maelefique (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Any objections to including the sentence "In July Rawat and his wife travelled to Copenhagen to meet with 8,000 followers, an event that marked his wife's first public appearance." sans tea and cookies? I think it is a fair point that Rawat's public activities – apart from being given cars and enjoying gadgets – should also be covered. --Jayen466 00:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC) We all know, and the article seems to convey, that the subject travelled extensively. That particular trip doesn't appear to be noteworthy. We barely mention the wife again, so her first public appearance doens't seem important. Speaking of the wife, why did we delete her occupation of secretary and stewardess? Those were widely reported. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC) The article doesn't "seem to convey the subject travelled extensively". On the contrary in 24 lines covering Rawat's life between 74 and 80, we have three sentences that mention tours. One is the recently added - Rawat "financing his entourage of close officials and mahatmas on their frequent trips around the globe to attend the Mission's festivals" (he's not included). And a trip to "Atlantic City, New Jersey" in 76 and to India, South America and Europe in 1980. That's one trip in 76, and 3 in 80. At a minimum Rawat visited - Copenhagen 74, India, Venezuala 75, US summer tour, Italy, Peru, Swaziland, Argentina, Frankfurt 76, Rawat spoke in a dozen cities in tours of the US and Europe that finished with a 5 day event for 14,000 in Rome in November 77 and that's just from Cagan. The current method seems to be to reduce all mention of Rawat touring and talking and the amount of people receiving Knowledge and fill the article with money stories. The Copenhagen story should be included - it gives us numbers of followers, shows that Rawat shared the stage with his wife, shows the love of the serenading premies and Marolyn and Rwat's friendship to them. It's far more valuable than "In January 1979 the Los Angeles Times reported that Rawat maintained his Malibu following despite a rising mistrust of cults.", which is only included because it mentions "cults". It's time to be fair to Rawat.Momento (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC) If we can find a reliable, 3rd party source besides Cagan for his travel I wouldn't mind adding some statistics about the subject's travelling. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC) I agree that trip doesn't appear particularly noteworthy. As for Johnson being a stewardess, that wasn't in the draft before either. I removed the reference to her being Rawat's secretary, since it seems to be a disputed fact. FWIW, the way their courtship is described by Cagan, Johnson was not working for Rawat at the time he began to take a romantic interest in her (though she was asked to serve as a stewardess on a flight that Rawat took). I have no objection to adding that she was a stewardess; if we want to refer to her being her secretary, we should do so with attribution and mention that Cagan contradicts that. On balance, I'd rather leave the reference to her being a secretary out. Jayen466 20:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Does Cagan directly deny that Johnson was a secretary? I don't recall and don't have the book in front of me. The fact that the book contradicts many press accounts doesn't mean that the book is correct. (At least one source says she was a "drama queen" in high school - I didn't know that that was a real title!). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC) I do not see Cagan denying any such thing. Al Gagan says is that she was a stewardess who met Rawat in 1973. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC) And before we jump and use mistaken AP desk wires, it would be better to use our scholarly sources first. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Galanter writes: married an American airline stewardess and settled down, for example. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC) You are both correct, she does not "deny" that she was his secretary, in fact she doesn't mention the word "secretary" as far as I have seen. What Cagan does describe though, in some detail, about how they met etc., is incompatible with the presentation that he "married his secretary" in the sense that is commonly understood, i.e. that she was his secretary for x amount of time, and then he developed an interest in her. I'd rather not evoke that cliché, since it does not seem to fit the facts. Jayen466 21:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC) (ec)In December 1973, when he turned 16, Rawat took administrative control of the Mission's U.S. branch which, according to Foss and Larkin, "had developed a centralized bureaucracy with rampant titleism and a penchant for office forms and organizational charts" What is missing from this is a fact that has been covered by Geaves, Levine and Nelson: that after he took over he proceeded to dismantle that stuff and democratized and secularized the movement. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Have no problem with mentioning that. Does anyone else? --Jayen466 22:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC) (Note: Though I also remember reading, in Downton, that this secularisation was to some extent reversed after Dec. 76. Jayen466 23:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)) Saliba is a scholar too. His marriage to his American secretary, almost 10 years his senior, has also been frowned upon in the popular press and by the Guru's own family. [Saliba 1980] To the general public it is the height of ridicule to believe that "a fat little rich kid" with a taste for luxurious living and expensive gadgets—and who, on top of everything, married his secretary, a woman eight years older than himself—could be the Perfect Master;... [Foss & Larkin 1978] Guru Maharaj Ji and Marolyn Lois Johnson, a young woman who worked as a United Airlines stewardess before becoming private secretary to the Guru, were married in Denver on May 20, 1974. [Current Biography Yearbook 1974] It may be a cliche, but that doesn't mean it isn't verifiable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC) An obvious cliche. I guess we will have to say that there are competing opinions on the matter. (After reading Kemmeny's comment on Foss & Larkin, we ought to at least, understand that they were seriously off in their "study) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Cliche or not, it doesn't change the verifiable facts. Do you have a problem with Saliba or the Current Biography Yearbook as sources? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Did I say I had a problem? I said that we ought to report that there are competing accounts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC) What account says she wasn't a secretary? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC) I still think it is the more elegant solution simply not to mention it at all. The fact that something is verifiable does not mean we have to include it. Jayen466 22:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Another way is to mention both occupations without confirming either. Something like "Johnson, variously described as a stewardess or as Rawat's secretary..." This information is much more verifiable, and notable, than a trip to Copenhagen. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC) This is why they say a little knowledge is dangerous. Every premie who was around at the time knows she was an airline stewardess not a secretary and met as described by eye witnesses in Cagan. The secretary story is completely false. WillBeBack suggestion to say " variously described as a stewardess or as Rawat's secretary" is completely inappropriate. One thing is certain, we should mention she was a follower. Editors who use their personal experience as a source should give us enough information to know how they'd know. I'd thought that the editor making this assertion lived on a different continent than Rawat, so I'm not sure how he'd be familiar with the job title of the subject's then-fiancee. If he'd like to tell us then I'm sure we'd all be interested. But failing that it's a pointless comment. Some editors here ask for source, then for better sources, then for more better sources, then they say that the sources are just copying each other's mistakes and can't be trusted anyway because their personal knowledge contradicts them. Editors who make arguments like that don't understand Wikipedia's policies. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC) I'm not offering my "personal experience as a source ", I'm saying how it was. As you know I am a stickler for following Wiki policy, not just to the letter but in spirit as well.Momento (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC) But how do you know "how it was"? If they were a continent away, and if DLM publications were calling her his secretary, then what inside line do you have to know the "truth"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Because every premie in the world was intrigued with the marriage and premies who knew her spread the word.Momento (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC) I found an an article from The Golden Age (which I understand was an Australian DLM publication) online, which is quoted to have said, "Marolyn Johnson, now Marolyn Singh Rawat, was born in San Diego, California, on October 25, 1949. She graduated from Southwestern College, California, in 1970 and received Knowledge in September 1973. She has known Guru Maharaj Ji for about a year, and they developed a close relationship during the time Marolyn served as Guru Maharaj Ji's secretary." Even so, I would not like to present the cliché of "he married his secretary", simply because it reads different in Cagan. Jayen466 23:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks for your research. Considering the fact that we now have a contemporaneous DLM account calling her his secretary, contemporaneous newspaper accounts calling her his secretary, and scholarly accounts calling her his secreatry, it appears the Cagan's view is contradicted from all sides. When so many sources contradict her that's a reason to doubt her accuracy rather than to that she's right and they're wrong. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC) I can find more scholarly sources that describes PR's wife as a stewardess and not as a secretary. So that is not the issue. We all know by now that once a mistaken assertion is made by one source it gets repeated/cited by other sources. I would say than in these cases, hearing it directly from people close to the subject (i.e. Cagan interviewees) is probably the safest as it relates to accuracy. After all, why these witnesses would want to hide a fact such as a secretarial job? I simply don't see a reason for that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Not so fast. The Golden Age has Marolyn receiving Knowledge in Sept 73 but Cagan has her living in an ashram in June. Another contradiction. It think Cagan who interviewed far more eye witnesses than the Golden Age or all the media combined has to be the trusted source. Numerous times Cagan has quoted Marolyn, and I think Marolyn knows whether she was a stewardess or not.Momento (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC) True, noticed that too. I concluded that she must have moved into the ashram as an aspirant. Jayen466 00:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC) That would be very unusual and if it was the case I'm sure Cagan would have mentioned it.Momento (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC) :-) Sorry to disappoint you, Will, but Cagan's account is not contradicted. Her account and the others simply contain different parts of the story. What Cagan says is that in June 1973, Johnson, an ashramite and airline hostess, came to Rawat's house to deliver a gift. He happened to come to the door, and they "clicked". A week later, Johnson received a call and was asked to attend a flight Rawat was on. Subsequently she was asked to deliver some equipment to Rawat. After she arrived in Denver, they spent some time together. Then Rawat expressed a wish to get to know her better. They developed a relationship which they tried to hide from other members of Rawat's family, who might disapprove, and spent more and more time together. The weight of sources would seem to indicate that at some point, she was officially designated his secretary. These subtleties are lost if we simply say, "married his secretary". Jayen466 00:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC) It's not either/or. We now have a DLM source that says she was a stewardess and then a secretary. Why would the writers at the DLM make up the fact that she was his secretary? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC) I don't believe they did. Jayen466 00:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Why would the LA Times make up the fact that "the Malibu estate was bought in 1974 for Maharaj Ji, his wife and their two small children".Momento (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC) And why would the NY Times mke up the fact that "was married Monday night in his $80,000 Denver home."Momento (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC) And this settles it "Dale Johnson, said his daughter met the guru when she was a stewardess for United Air Lines. She quit the airline in February and became the guru's secretary." So she was an airline stewardess when they met and resigned 3 months before they were married.Momento (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Exactly. She was a stewardess and then his secretary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC) I've had a go at including the development of the relationship. What do you guys think? Will that do? Can it be made better? --Jayen466 01:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC) I think we've reached the tipping point. This article is now a suitable for a tabloid. Forget Rawat as a teenage guru with millions of followers, it's now a romance novel. Back to Draft 10 before faint.Momento (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC) :-) We can always go back to "married his secretary", if you guys think that's preferable. Though personally, I thought that as part of Coming of Age, it is not irrelevant in his bio. At least it seemed important enough to him. Jayen466 02:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Why don't we go back to writing a fair, unbiased encyclopedic article on Prem Rawat, instead of this mess.Momento (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Could you indicate the source, Momento? Then we can cite it. Jayen466 01:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC) 2 A - THURSDAY, MAY 23, 1974 FLORENCE MORNING NEWS She's Tried Everything Else And Now She's Mrs. Guru DENVER, Colo. (AP) Cheerleader. Homecoming queen. Airline stewardess. And now, Mrs. Prem Pal Singh Rawat Guru's wife.Momento (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC) If we're going to expand the material on Johnson ousing poor sources then we should include the important details that she continued to kiss her husband's feet in public after the wedding, which is well-sourced. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC) We should move over some of the "Durga Ji" material from the DLM. It's more appropriate here. The part that's relevant there is the celibacy issue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Time for re-write - "Other devotees said she played the role of a stewardess in a film made for the mission entitled "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?" from A-2 INDEPENDENT (AM) * PRESS-TELEGRAM (PM) Long Beach, Calif., Wed., May 22, 1974. So now we have - Marolyn Johnson, a beautiful, humble, person, variously known as an actress, secretary, stewardess who is blond, tall 24 wore a white and red gown to the ceremony while the short, cherubic guru who has recently begun sporting a sparse mustache wore a dark tuxedo to the wedding which was held simultaneously at the Vockland Community Church at Lookout Mountain and Rockland Community Church and in the guru's $80,000 Denver home.Momento (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Perhaps we should split the marriage paragraph into a section and a separate proposal. this is getting far afield from the original proposal and the wife/wedding/rift deserves more space. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC) I will have to agree with Momento here... I think that this is becoming more of a evening UK tabloid piece than an encyclopedic article. I mean, just read these drafts! Unless substantial work is done, this kind of writing stick like a sore thumb in any article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC) I would argue to go back to Draft 6. Seriously. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC) "Tabloid" is a worn-out argument without meaning. But I agree in part that we're losing focus here. Let's use a fresh propsoal for new material about Johnson and keep this proposal limite to the material lon Rawat's lifestyle that we've already discussed. Let's stick wth undisputed sources and seek consensus rather than promoting disputes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Not a worn-out argument once you read the draft, Will. I move to reconsider Draft 6 which captures the essence of what needs to be said, and said in an encyclopedic tone. 04:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Where would Draft 6 go in the current text? Jayen466 09:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Which parts are like a tabloid and what makes themn that way? If you can't answer I'll restart the "buzzword" thread on the mediation thread, where I thought we'd dealt with these useless phrases that have no meaning. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Just read the Draft 11 and tell me what is encyclopedic about 75% of the stuff there. Just because it was published somewhere it does not mean that it has to be included in a biography. Some of the stuff is utterly useless fluff. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC) There is too much unencyclopedic or unbalanced material There is an emphasis on the trivial (is she a stewardess or is she a secretary). There is an emphasis on presenting everyone's view except Rawat's (She publicly disowned him in 1975, subsequently gaining legal control of the Indian DLM; no mention that Mata Ji was the patron and already had legal control). There is over emphasis of negative material (His affluent lifestyle over that period, maintained despite the DLM's financial difficulties following the Millennium '73 festival, generated considerable controversy and, according to Bromley and Shupe, even defections among premies; no mention that under Rawat's direction all the debt created by his mother brother and Mishler and Hand was repaid). And what is sorely missing is material about what Rawat was doing in his other life, the one where he's the leader of the fasted growing NRM in America i.e. touring, talking, relating to his followers, transforming DLM etc And a lack of context for all the criticism (all about money but nothing about the traditional role of the guru as per Downton and others). In short, it looks like an article put together by an anti-Rawat reporter which ignores what Rawat is doing in order to present what his critics think he's doing. Perfect for a tabloid, unsuitable for an encyclopedia.Momento (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC) While I have difficulty seeing how else one could summarise Cagan p. 187–190 in two or three sentences, this attempt clearly has failed. Draft 11 rolled back. Jayen466 08:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC) It doesn't need to be in. Imagine writing about a prolific period in a musician's life where his music is not discussed only how much he made, who he dated and what his critics said. Now remove the musicians name and put in Rawat and you've got this draft. I'm going to concentrate on draft 10.Momento (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC) We have an an entire, separate article on Rawat's teachings and another entire article on the DLM (about which Cagan is bizarrely silent). This article is just about his life. As for what's "encyclopedic", you'll find that real encyclopedists, like Melton, include most of the details you're compaining about. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC) On the contrary, this article is about Prem Rawat not Prem Rawat's life. Prem Rawat is primarily noted for being a guru/teacher/speaker on inner peace. That is the core of his notability and that should be the core of the article.Momento (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Tend to agree with Will here. Biographies of Goethe, e.g., tend to cover the crushes he had on various women in great detail, partly because these experiences influenced and coloured his work (Young Werther and all that). Same with rock musicians. Jayen466 20:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Goethe crushes may have been an influence his work but Rawat's marriage didn't influence his teachings. If you look at Goethe's Wiki bio his "crushes" are hardly mentioned. And musicians may have been inspired by lovers in the songs the wrote but Rawat isn't writing love songs to his wife, he has been speaking and teaching about inner peace for 40 years. Rawat's wife is notable for two things - that he married her (so he's not a renunciate) and that he shared the stage with her (unlike every other Indian guru). Momento (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC) (Goethe's German wiki bio is rather more comprehensive, as one might expect, and covers this in great detail, as do published biographies retracing his life.) Rawat's marriage may not have affected his teaching in a major way (though perhaps in a minor way, since I remember reading he also started to draw on his experiences as a father and husband in his talks later on), but it did affect the course of his movement in a major way. The DLM split over the issue, Rawat lost 80% of his worldwide following, his brother had a picture showing him and his wife kissing published in the Indian press (at a time when Bollywood films had a legally defined minimum distance of a foot or so between the lips of any male and female actors, making this a pornographic image according to Indian sensibilities), etc. Cagan's biography is actually full of such stuff that could arguably be said to be trivia compared to Rawat's message of meditation. As is argued below, the birth of his children is also something still missing in our bio, and his wife obviously played a major role in that. So I don't think it is quite the same as the bio of a scientist, for example, whose husband or wife has no independent notability and can simply be covered in a single sentence noting date of marriage and number of children. Apart from that, I am entirely in favour of adding material about his teaching activity. Jayen466 11:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC) I agree the marriage is important but secretary/stewardess, early romance is not. I'm also in favor of more teaching and I believe Rawat introducing his wife to the 8000 premies in Copenhagen is a useful, fact filled sentence.Momento (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC) "Spacer refs" I find it very hard to follow the changes to refs in a list with no landmarks, so I've inserted a "spacer ref" at the end of each proposal so that we can see where the refs for each proposal start and stop. There may be a must elegant way of doing it, but I can't think of it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Added an horizontal line at the end of the last ref tag in each draft. Markup: <hr /> ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Mediator Comments I think it's best if I just add a section here. All of you need to calm down. The use of sources always depends of the context of their use. I'll remind you that it isn't my role as a mediator to handle editorial conduct issues, however I do use my discretion, and when I feel necessary, I do what is required, whether on occasion it may be controversial. That said, I do think that everyone here could benefit from some tea, and a sit down. Additionally, I would like for you all to read this. Steve Crossin (contact) 07:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC) note, after the Cagan RfC (early 2007: Talk:Prem_Rawat/Archive_23#RFC_Summary), there was another elaborate discussion on its status (started shortly after the Metz article): Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 29#Status of “Peace Is Possible” – with follow-ups like Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 37#Use of Cagan's Book. The current more-or-less consensus resulting from all that is: Cagan can be used for non-contentious assertions only (number of children, etc). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Is there any thing in these drafts that is sourced to Cagan and that is contentious? Please point these to me, because I don't seem to find any. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC) If no other reputable author contradicts Cagan the material in PIP, then it is not contentious.Momento (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC) PIP should be treated as a primary, self-published source because Cagan was hired by premies to write the biography from their point of view and it was published by Mighty River Press, that is owned by a premie with PIP as its only published book. It's widely promoted by Rawat's supporting organizations and TPRF has been handed it out in it's promotion of Prem Rawat. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Even if some editors believe that it is a self published source (which is not), material from self-published sources can be used in Wikipedia articles. Read: WP:SPS ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC) It's not a matter of belief, it's obvious to any third grader. LOL! TPRF, EV, et al, promote the book all of the timeand gave it away in gift packages to celebrities in LA attending the Academy Awards ceremony last year. Btw, Jossi, were you a source for the book? Or anybody else with whom you work in a "Prem Rawat related organization?" Sylviecyn (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Sylviecyn, please retract "Btw, Jossi, were you a source for the book? Or anybody else with whom you work in a "Prem Rawat related organization?". I think it's rather inappropriate to make such a comment. --Steve Crossin (contact) 17:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Retracted, after consideration, I do think it's a question that should stand, though it's up to Jossi whether they wish to answer or not. Steve Crossin (contact) 02:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC) No. I refuse to do it. It's a reasonable question, Steve, and since when are you now regulating the behavior of editors? Didn't you just yesterday say it's not your job? Or are you now picking and choosing whose editorial behavior you're going to "mediate?" There was nothing wrong with my question. Obviously, Jossi doesn't have to answer it, but the problem's not with the question. The problem is the reaction to it and I'm not baiting either. It's a legitimate quesiton. In my opinion, Steve, you're the one that's out of line here. Show me the Wiki guideline that says I cannot ask a question of a fellow editor. Show it to me now and I'll comply. Furthermore, I have never, ever, ever been anything but forthcoming and an open book about my involvement with Prem Rawat, before and after my time as a devotee, right down to being quoted in the "Blinded By The Light" article and disclosing my real name. If you're going to behave so unfairly as a mediator, then I'm going to ask you be replaced. That's the long and short of it. And, contrary to certain editor's beliefs, I'm not "baiting" anyone. I'm asking an answerable question, not trying to escalate. Sheesh! Steve, have you happened to notice Jossi's perpetual bad mood and the miserable way he's been treating his fellow editors here with stonewalling and rudeness? Why haven't you done anything about that? Sylviecyn (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC) I'm baffled as to how to respond to that. I'd appreciate it if you don't insult me. This is an extrememly complex dispute to mediate, and there is no benefit for asking me to be replaced whenever I make a comment that you dislike. As for me "regulating the behaviour of editors", I said that it wasn't my role as a mediator. I also said that "however I do use my discretion, and when I feel necessary, I do what is required..". I laid a ground rule when I took on this case, a civility rule. I've made an error of judgment regarding your question, however no-one is perfect, I try to be as perfect as possible. As for Jossi's conduct, yes, I've noticed it. I've noticed the conduct issues of all parties, and it is concerning. It's concerning that making a comment like I did led to a long comment basically asking for me to resign as a mediator. Additionally, I honestly do think that no one would mediate this case. Please understand that I am human, and I do make mistakes, however it is up to Jossi whether he wishes to answer this question or not. Steve Crossin (contact) 02:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC) I apologize for the way I responded to you, Steve, but your jumping in here in Jossi's defense seemed unfair and one-sided when all I did was ask him a question. I'm fully aware that it's up to Jossi whether or not he wishes to answer the question, and don't know why you're bringing that up becasue I haven't made any demands that he answer it. I believe it was disproportional, unbalanced, and unfair for you to request I remove my comment when it wasn't uncivil by any standard. Regarding your continuing as mediator, well, yes, I think that may be in question unless, hopefully in the near future you'll have more time to familiarize yourself with the subject and the dynamnics of the interactions between editors here in order that you can make more fair-minded assessments of these types of situations. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Show me the Wiki guideline that says I cannot ask a question of a fellow editor. Wikipedia:Civility and a hint of Wikipedia:Civility#Harassment_and_disclosing_personal_information_.28outing.29 --Jayen466 23:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC) I wasn't being uncivil by any standard, and I take great issue with you, Jayen, for even hinting that I'm harassing anyone here. That's a grave accusation, considering the circumstances here. I asked Jossi a simple and reasonable question, because he's blatantly promoting the Cagan book on these pages. Jossi simply could have declined to answer my question and avoided his uproar and hystrionics. That would have been the civil thing to do. I'm getting a bit tired of special treatment here of pro-Rawat editors, and that includes you, Jayen. I refrain from even writing anything for fear I'll be accused of promoting a biased "anti-Rawat" POV (God forbid), while you, Jayen, have been hopping and jumping at every one of Jossi's requests to make edits to text that he prefers. Yeah, I'm angry with you, but I'll get over it. Meanwhile, it might be a good idea, Jayen, if you'd limit yourself to writing one draft per proposal -- it's getting a bit tedious reading your many drafts on the same subject. Therefore, in the future, please make one draft per subject and edit the one you make, instead of making several. Thanks... Sylviecyn (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Asking personal questions is not what we are here for. Jossi's and Momento's wanting to use Cagan as a source has a very simple explanation, from where I am sitting – it's a biography that portrays Rawat in a positive light. --Jayen466 00:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Especially if Jossi was involved in the book. But then, that would be a COI, and we don't have those here.....oh wait... -- Maelefique (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC) " Facts are facts and have nothing to do with civility or lack of it." [15] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC) I disagree. I think it's important to know whether any of the editors who are pushing the use of this book were sources for it. The book doesn't list any specific sources, so it's not clear who was involved in the project. If anyone here was involved in putting the book together that should be made known. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Seconded. The question is legitimate. A clear answer to it would move things forward. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Not all boooks cite sources, and we do not go about asking editors if they are sources for a book, and siding with Sylviecyn, is very revealing indeed. I have no intention to respond to any such questions, and you can think of this whatever you want. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC) The refusal by Jossi to discuss his involvement in this book is very troubling in light of his strenuous arguments on its behalf. It further calls into question the use of this material as a source for this topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Whatever happen to your "discuss the edit and not the editor"? I am contributing to this page well within the parameters advised in WP:COI, so please do not try to get the upper hand in this content dispute by asserting COI: Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC) I would argue that these "questions" are a distraction that do not address arguments presented below. Please see it to address the arguments made on its merits and without prejudice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC) The question of whether a Wikipedia editor was involved in the produciton of a disputed source that he's promoting is very important. If you don't want to address it then please stop promoting the book. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC) I think that you are crossing a line which you should not. I am not obliged to either deny or to affirm any such assertions, and I am not "promoting" this book any more that I am "promoting" Nelson, Melton, or Kemmeny. I would ask the mediator to intervene here and stop these comments from Sylvienc and Will Beback≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC) So you're not arguing for the inclusion of Cagan as a source? Perhaps I'm mistaken but I thought you were. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC) I am arguing about many sources, this one included. Do you have any problems with this? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC) I'd have a problem if a Wikipedia editor pushing the use of any of those sources had been involved in their production but woould't say how. In my opinion an editor who was involved in the production of a source should either be upfront about the nature of that involvement, or should stay out of the discussion of it. No Mary Roshs please. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC) ???? Uh? What are you saying? That I am impersonating Cagan? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC) I've started a thread at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat#Issue/Discussion topic D: Cagan for discussion of this topic. Let's try to keep this page focused on the proposal to add information about Rawat's lifestyle. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC) We already agreed to discuss sources in the context in which they are used. So, there is no point on that thread. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC) It's relevant to every section of this article, not just to this proposal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC) See thread below. Any other issues to be discussed about this source? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Yes, and let's discuss them in one central place rather than in every proposal and talk page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Other publishing houses for Cagan's book Not worth replying to Sylviencyn's baiting. In any case, there are other publishers that have published Cagan's book, so this whole argument about self-published is irrelevant. Other publishers of Cagan's book:[16] Editorial Dilema [17], and [18] Alles Kultur [19], also featured here [20] Editorial Magnolia [21], and here [22] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC) I think that renders the supposed self-published status of Mighty River Press and Pragma moot. These foreign-language versions are published by established German, Portuguese and Spanish publishing houses. I checked – as far as I can see, they have been around, and publish other stuff. --Jayen466 23:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Aye ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) My objection to the source is not based solely on its publisher. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC) ????? So, it is that you just do not like the book? Did not find it interesting? Any other personal opinion? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Let's discuss this on the mediation page, since it's relevant to the use of the book across the topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Agree with jayen. Cagan has written several biographies, so she's in the clear. And PIP has been published by several independent and established publishes, so no cause for complaint there. I guess the issue is finally and absolutely resolved.Momento (talk) 07:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC) See User_talk:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat#Issue.2FDiscussion_topic_D:_Cagan. (please don't laugh, or get upset...) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC) When I first read Cagan, I was struck by the rather adoring tone of the book and I wished it had been more even-handedly written. Because of this apparent bias, while it seems to be impeccably authored and published, I agreed here that it should be restricted to non-contentious statements only. Since then I have seen the most outrageously negatively-biased sources seriously put up for inclusion, so I withdraw my previous caveat. Unless some editorial discrimination appears in the other areas, I believe the book is fine for all information it contains. Rumiton (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC) I realize that's your belief, but Wikipedia policy says otherwise. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 12 Comments please. Rumiton (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Could you please say which version it's based on and what the main changes are? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC) As I wrote in the heading, it's based on Draft 11. The main changes are to the semantic flow. Have also left out some irrelevancies (IMO.) Rumiton (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Rumiton, I made some comments about Draft 11 that you are not addressing on this draft. Please read above. As it stands this does not work for me at all. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC) I've just added some responses to your comments above, under Draft 11. Jayen466 19:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC) I just read through that section. Seems like a long way to go if all the questions need to be dealt with. Rumiton (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC) But I will start tomorrow. Rumiton (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC) This Draft looks reasonably balanced to me.Comments follow: Savlonn (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC) a). P5 – “Has the term “Premies” previously been explained in the article?--Savlonn (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Yes. See Prem Rawat. Jayen466 19:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC) b) P6 Grammar – ‘Inspiration’ should be either ‘Inspirator’ or ‘source of inspiration’. --Savlonn (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC) See Prem Rawat. This is the current wording. Jayen466 19:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC) It's also the word the source used. I think the usage is pretty much acceptable. Rumiton (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC) c) P7 “he was elevated to a higher level in the conveyance of "Knowledge". 1. What is the source for this? 2. I find this sentence difficult to understand, due to lack of context. By whom was he elevated? What is nature of the elevation in respect of the conveyance of Knowledge? Are you referring to a spiritual elevation – i.e. resurgence in belief of having a divine nature? --Savlonn (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC) See Prem Rawat. This is the current wording. Jayen466 19:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Looking at it afresh, it does not represent the source very well. See my Draft 13 for a new attempt. Rumiton (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC) d) P7 “Many returned to ashram life”. This is missing a subject. Did you mean students?--Savlonn (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC) See Prem Rawat. This is the current wording. Jayen466 19:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC) The subject is premies in the preceeding sentence. Rumiton (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC) e) P8 “several ex-members became vocal critics, and attacked the movement with charges of brainwashing and mind control”. The word “attacked” is way too strong here; ‘accused’ or ‘claimed’ are better words. The article can’t make any assumptions as to whether these claims were justified or not without diving into the analysis of the claims. As such, they should just be presented in a neutral voice. --Savlonn (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Point taken. See Draft 13. See Prem Rawat. This is the current wording. My suggestion would be that we concentrate here on the actual changes and additions, and create separate proposals for other items of concern. This section is too big to fix in one gulp; I fear we may never get a proposal into the article this way. Jayen466 19:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC) We are working here because the current version is in dispute. Therefore, responding that the wording is used in the current version serves no purpose. I would appreciate if my comments could be addressed within the context of the draft section that I am quoting from. Savlonn (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC) I appreciate what you're saying. But this proposal was set up to add more coverage of Rawat's "opulent/sumptuous lifestyle" (see above). If we try to do too much at the same time, we may fail to do anything at all. The only reason drafts on this proposal page came to expand and include the entire existing Coming of Age section was to be able to slot things into the correct places chronologically. I am sorry if I have sounded abrupt, and at any rate it's only my opinion. Other editors are free to disagree. Jayen466 20:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Ok - I also appreciate where you are coming from. I agree to keep the tight focus on PR's lifestyle here, if we agree that consensus would also have to be reached in the relevent article section (e.g. coming of age) in addition to consensus reached here on the "opulent/sumption lifestyle" material. For example, the sentence on brainwashing is a showstopper for me, but am willing to let it sit here as long as we cover it in the appropriate section before publishing to main article. Savlonn (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC) The heading is Coming of age. I don't see we have any choice but to create a balanced account of the period. Rumiton (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Well done Rumiton, much improved flow. --Jayen466 18:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks. Seems we are still in the woods, though. Rumiton (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Copying here an issue that was not addressed in 11: In December 1973, when he turned 16, Rawat took administrative control of the Mission's U.S. branch which, according to Foss and Larkin, "had developed a centralized bureaucracy with rampant titleism and a penchant for office forms and organizational charts" What is missing from this is a fact that has been covered by Geaves, Levine and Nelson: that after he took over he proceeded to dismantle that stuff and democratized and secularized the movement. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC) I don't have the Geaves or Levine to hand, and the Nelson quote on the Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars page doesn't make it clear which period Nelson (published in 1979) is referring to. Downton mentions that there was a shift away from secular tendencies, i.e. in the opposite direction, after Mishler left in 1976. Seems a complex situation. Jayen466 22:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC) We also need more info activities on these years. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC) This all goes well-beyond the proposal. The internal workings of the DLM movement are better handled in that article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Rawat's overhaul of DLM, paying off the debts and the replacement of Mishler are all important actions and must be included.Momento (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Just a few things that are missing from the period: Milton Glasser, New York Magazine art director interaction with PR, and poster design TV interview with Bill Beebee New York newspaper with headline "Prince of Peace arrives in Volkswagen" Incident at Hunter College Merv Griffin Show interview Nov 29, 1973 Birth of first daughter on March 1975, named "Premlata" Press conference in Lucknow April 1975 in which he was questioned about the family split Indian wedding ceremony and controversy with Indian authorities for its permission to held a public ceremony Arrival in Santiago de Chile, during Allende's last days before the Pinochet coup d'etat Feb 1976 invitation to address members of Congress at the Mayflower Hotel to commemorate the United States bicentennial. July 20, 1976, Washington D.C. Senator Strom Thurmond read into the United States Congressional Record "Prem Rawat's Inspirational Message to the United States Citizen's Congress" 1977 multiday events in a dozen cities in the United States and Europe, including events for 4,500 in Denver, 6,500 in Miami, and 10,500 in London. 1977 14,500 peple event in Palazzo dello Sporto in Rome 1977 audit by the IRS who found the DML to be in full compliance with the regulations governing charities Second daughter's birth in 1978 Falcon de-pressurizing incident on 1977 Gulfstream II lease in 1977 1979 20,000 multi-day outdoor event in Kissimmee, Florida People that have worked hard in finding sources for the "opulent" lifestyle section, may want to consider staring research on these aspects as well. Thanks in advance. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC) What are the sources for these incidents, besides Cagan? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC) You seem to be a good researcher, so I am sure that you can find sources for these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC) BTW, even those that argued strongly about Cagan's book agreed to use if for non contentious material, so I do not not understand why you are asking that question. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Good points Jossi.Momento (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC) There must be more of Rawat's core activities during these years - the tours, the administration changes, the westernization etc.Momento (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC) If editors want to have a detailed account of these years (1973-1980). There are many sources that have not been used for these topics. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC) That's a great idea and should be the subject of another proposal. This proposal concerns the lifestyle issues that we've been discussing for a month. Let's not get distracted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC) I think we are losing focus here and discussing at cross purposes. See the short discussion above between Rumiton and myself as to the purpose of this section. The new material that Jossi has listed may be chronologically relevant to the 'coming of age' section, but most of it is not relevant to PR's "Opulent/Sumptuous Lifestyle". Either we should focus on the nominated purpose of this section, to be inserted in the relevant article sections, or we abandon this section and paste the relevant drafts in a new Section 9 - Coming of Age.Savlonn (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC) The idea to create an "opulent/sumptuous lifestyle" proposal was Will's idea. I think it is biased, unfair and POV. It has to fit into the "Coming of Age" section and in order to do that properly other material needs to be added.Momento (talk) 07:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Actually, Savlonn asked about sources for the "opulent lifestyle" sentence in the intro. Once the sources were assembled it became clear that this is a major issue with the subject and required greater weight in the body of the article. Adding a paragraph on his lifestyle that was so frequently commented on does not require that other material be added. There's certainly more that could be said about this period of the subject's life and I look forward to separate proposals to cover that other material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC) That proposal has already been made. We are working on the "Coming of Age" section in total.Momento (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Proposal7 is about the lifestyle issue. If an editor writes a draft that brings in other topics then that's "legal", but it isn't necessarily helpful. It's hard enought to get consensus on small issues - let's not try to get consensus on a major re-write that includes adding 18 incidents that have never been mentioned on this article before. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC) I'm fine with Draft 12 going in as is, and for the rest to be addressed in a separate proposal. Jayen466 10:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC) The Pilarzyk paragraph I'm OK with [draft 12], at least enough progress to replace the current version of that section in the Rawat article, apart from this paragraph: Besides reporting on his perceived materialistic fixations, the media often criticized Rawat for his age and physical appearance. Premies' responses to the press reporting ranged from bewilderment and amusement to extreme defensiveness. Positive comments about Rawat's movement came from youth culture figures such as anti-war activist Rev. Daniel Berrigan, radical lawyer William Kunstler, and singer-songwriter Cat Stevens. This is a double of what is currently in the User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal9 (Media) proposal. It is an entire paragraph sourced to a single source (Pilarzyk), not even mentioned in the body of the text of the paragraph. It is not on "lifestyle" (so not really belonging to the current proposal and not discussed as such). I propose to get that paragraph out of the Proposal7#12 draft, and treat it in proposal 9, to see if we can reach consensus there. Otherwise I'm OK, with the usual provision: will probably need some ref finetuning when transferred to the Rawat article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC) (addition: I also think it best to keep the heliport material in as argued by Will below in #Draft 13 per prior consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)) Francis, I see what you mean, but I think it may be several weeks, if not months, before we arrive at some sort of consensus on User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal6 (Reception). In the meantime, let us have this paragraph here; we can revisit the question and consider transferring it to the Reception section as part of the Proposal 6 discussions. Jayen466 11:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC) I'm not pressured for time. Above it was suggested to keep the non-lifestyle issues out of prop7. So either we settle all the issues as one continuum (prop6/prop7/prop9/...), either we agree to split off topics, and treat them by proposal of limited scope. I prefer the latter approach (which has its downsides too... but less so than the full frontal all at once approach). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC) What I am suggesting is to leave it in there for now, with an understanding that it can be moved to a more suitable place in Reception later. The idea of housing it in Reception appears to have merit to me (the same could even be said for the first sentence of the "wealth" paragraph), but it will be some time before we can accomplish that as part of Proposal 6/9. In the meantime, it would be nice to have this material in the article. Jayen466 13:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Yes, I understand what you're saying. But I don't agree. I only support draft 12 if the paragraph is left out of the coming of age section. The Pilarzyk material has been not in the article for years, a few days or weeks won't matter. It's a good encouragement not to weaken our attention on the other proposals. The Pilarzyk paragraph covers both the leaving India section and the coming of age section. So, having it only in one of those sections is a misrepresentation. As an alternative, I'd agree to have your summary of the Pilarzyk paragraph inserted as a first paragraph in Prem Rawat#Media (or: maybe better: between the first and the second sentence of the current content of the media section), at the same time when the rest of Draft 12 is implemented in the coming of age section. I suppose you can live with that too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC) If all it is needed to stop a proposal from moving forward is an ultimatum such as my way or the highway, then this mediation has no chances to succeed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC) So I understand you drop your "my way or the highway" ultimatum ("This stays here or we remove all of it anywhere in the article" - see #Draft 11). I think we can continue without the Pilarzyk para included in prop7 or the Coming of age section. The Pilarzyk para is currently included in all drafts of prop9 (User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal9 (Media)), so I don't see any problem for this material soon being included in the article in a place where we all can agree about. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Other suggestions This draft needs more material. Specifically Rawat's touring, downsizing DLM, number of followers etc. I'll find some material.Momento (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Example - In July Rawat and his wife travelled to Copenhagen to meet with 8,000 followers, an event that marked his wife's first public appearance & Following the birth of his second child Rawat began to tour without his family, speaking in places as various as Swaziland, Peru and Frankfurt. [123]By the end of the 70s DLM, while growing little in the United States with 10,000 to 12,000 active members, has expanded significantly in Southern Asia, the South Pacific and South America.[175]& By 1975 Rawat's message was available in 58 countries on six continents. All important info for this section.Momento (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 13 Perhaps editors might list points that have not been properly covered, giving refs. Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC) I found an excellent article that cover these years. I will email it to you as I will be quite busy in the next few days. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC) All right, thanks. I will hasten to my mailbox. Rumiton (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC) What's the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC) There are several problems with this draft: 1) It deletes all mention of the helipad controversy that we agreed upon months ago. 2) It doesn't fully summarize the criticisms of Mishler, Hand, et al. 3) It relies too much on Cagan for self-serving information. 4) It mentions a media "fixation" on his physical appearance without describing in neutral terms that appearance. Further, that material is sourced to Pilarzyk, but I don't see him mentioning a fixation on physical appearance. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC) We certainly did not "agree on" the helipad controversy. You pushed it into the article which was then sent to mediation. There was never any agreement on including this absurd irrelevancy. Rumiton (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC) (1) Consensus can change; even the LA Times described it as a "neighborhood dispute" (2) The only difference I see compared to current article status is the use of "predicting" instead of "warning" (3) I am not sure what is cited to Cagan alone in this draft. Could Rumiton or Will clarify? (4) Pilarzyk refers to the "physical condition of the guru" (with a string of references), we could use that expression "physical condition" verbatim to resolve the concern. (Pilarzyk does not proffer any more detailed information on said "physical condition" either.) What Pilarzyk doesn't mention is "age"; if we could have a ref for that, that would help. --Jayen466 21:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC) 1) Yes but I don't see a consensus to delete it. We agreed on it only a couple of months ago. Nothing has changed since then. 2) You're right that it is similar to what's in the text now. It is incomplete, but we can address that in a separate proposal along with some of the non-lifestyle changes that have been suggested. 3) The material about touring the world at the end is sourced to Cagan. Cagan is also used, along with two other sources, as a cite for During 1977, many returned to ashram life, and there was a shift back from secular tendencies towards ritual and messianic beliefs. What does Cagan add there that the other sources don't already provide? 4) Pilarzyk gives his sources - so we can quote one of them to indicate what about his physical condition was discussed. It's a disservice to readers to mention that there was an issue but not say what the issues was. We have neutral sources, including the subject's own physician, discussing his weight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· We don't need a consensus to delete it. It was never put there by consensus. You need to get a consensus if you want to include it now. Rumiton (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC) We need a consensus for any changes. The heliport material was drafted by Jayen, Jossi, Momento, and myself and no one removed it from the article, so it had a consensus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Can someone, out of interest, show me the diff for the content that was added to an article that was in question? Was it prior to the mediation, or within it? Steve Crossin (contact) 05:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC) The discussion was here: Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 32#Malibu house, proposed text. As far as I can tell, the material was added here: [23], on March 4. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks for locating that old discussion. I had forgotten more than I remembered having forgotten. :-) Jayen466 09:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Momewnto and I both objected to this inclusion. But you are saying that unless we deleted it from the article, there was a consensus? OK, I won't make that mistake again. I just deleted it. There was/is no consensus for such an irrelevancy. Rumiton (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Rumiton, please don't disrupt just to make a point. We're now in mediation and have agreed to not make major changes without consensus. That's the point of this discussion. I've restored the content pending the outcome of this or other proposals. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC) So you have it all aranged? If something isn't deleted, it must be there by consensus, and if it is, it is disrupting Wikipedia? Rumiton (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Please do not start an edit war. Obviously there is content in the article that people don't agree with, it wouldn't be at mediation, for nearly 3 months now. All of you agreed to not make edits that didn't have a consensus, and the only person that has made any recent, significant changes has been me, implementing proposals that have been discussed, and a consensus has been reached on. Remember that the article is being mediated on in it's present state, whether or not it's the wrong version. Resist the temptation to make edits that you know editors will disagree with, and I'm sure that things will be resolved more peacefully. Steve Crossin (contact) 16:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC) I'll look up the references for the points I made.Thanks.Momento (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC) I am opposed to now striking out just parts of drafts from the article, I did not agree that "some" of draft 13 should be used. Either draft 13 is in, or Draft 13 is out until it's worked on further. Also, while the LA Times described the helipad issue as a "neighbourhood dispute" they also talked about the discussions about it with the City county (oops, #1), to drop the part about being in conflict with the city county (oops #2) officials, and only leave in the part about a "neighbourhood dispute" completely changes the way it looks to the reader. I'm opposed to that too. -- Maelefique (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC) While the dispute may have been local, it was reported half a world away in The Times of London. To correct Maelifique, it was a matter of the County of Los Angeles (and also the powerful California Coastal Commission), not the city of Los Angeles. L.A. County is the most populous in the U.S., with almost 10 million inhabitants. It also has the most billionaires of any county, something like 40, not to mention the thousands of other moguls and celebrities. Yet none of them have private heliports. A member of the county's planning department had to go on leave partly as a result of the favors he gave people, including helping Rawat with the heliport. And the "neighbourhood dispute" wasn't just two neighbours fighting over a hedge. Full page ads were taken out in the local newspaper, and followers went door-to-door in Malibu to collect petition signatures supporting the heliport. It was obviously a big deal to the subject. But we discussed all of this back in February, and nothing has changed. I hate to think that a few months after agreeing on these proposals as part of mediation, the same editors will come back delete things with which they don't agree without first seeking a new consensus. If that's the case it makes this mediation kind of pointless. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Troublesome terms I notice unnecessary arguments above caused by some misunderstandings. Pardon my pedantry. Pejorative. In the context, "derogatory" is probably the better word. Cliche. I suspect that "glitch" was the word intended. (I might be wrong here.) Vanity publishing. Does not mean publishing vain or self-praising books, it refers to getting books printed and distributed with all costs born by the author. It really means the same as "self-publishing," but is a term invoked insultingly to suggest that the book would have had no chance of commercial success on its own merits if the author had not footed the bills, i.e. publishing would have been in vain. I think the commercial success of Peace is Possible and its translations rule out this derogatory phrase. Rumiton (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Fascinating, but useless information. Sylviecyn (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC) The author does not seem to have footed the bills, and by all measures it seems that Cagan's book has had comemrcial success, otherwsie why in earth it will be translated and published in other countries by reputable publishers? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC) Speculation does not really have a place here. I have a theory about who paid and why it was translated too, but you won't like mine either, and neither belong here. -- Maelefique (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 4 (v2.0) updated with draft 11 and draft 5 material; integrated the recently rewritten marriage paragraph from the main article; plus my own tweaks, additions and other updates (e.g. a reference that the "vocal criticisms" by ex-members were reported in the press from the mid 70s). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Regarding the emancipated minor issue: "In May 1974 Rawat received permission from a judge to get married".[52] needs to be changed to stay close to the source, to - Still a minor, Rawat needed a court order to obtain a license to marry without parental permission. In May 1974 he obtained such court order from a Juvenile court in Colorado.[52]Momento (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Moved remark to Talk:Prem Rawat#Emancipated minor --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 4 (v2.1) Updated the draft according to the only remark in six days. [24] Proposing to go live with draft 4 v2.1. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Yes, please let's finish this already. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Absolutely not. That version is full of problems which were partially fixed in later versions, though more work is still required. Why are they being ignored? Rumiton (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC) What problems are there with this version? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Re the vases, and other points, see my post above 12:46, 7 July 2008. Jayen466 19:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Agree with Rumiton. This draft is full of bias whcih Francis has not addressed.Momento (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Please specify the problems so they can be addresed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Written from an entirely biased POV. Probably impossible to fix.Momento (talk) 03:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC) If you can't offer any specific objections to the text then please don't object to posting it. We're here to draft text. Just saying "I don't like it" or words to that effect is uselesly obstructive. You're not even saying what the bias is. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC) The only articulate complaint regards the vases: Jayen refers to his prior comments: Jayen 12:46, 7 July 2008: "...I doubt the status of Rolling Stone magazine as an RS here..." Francis 22:35, 24 July 2008: "...The Rolling Stone article is an average reliable source...", thus far unchallenged at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat#Why aren't we addressing Peace is Possible as self-published? So, no, referring to prior comments is not sufficient. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Draft 4 (v2.2) Rephrased "vases" sentence (closer to source) [25] I see no other articulate complaints. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC) How many do you need? That draft is riddled with biased statements. The word "wealthy" for one. I recall that his father had bought a car, and he once talked about obtaining a fridge, both evidence of "wealth" in 1960s India, but not what would be conjured by the word in the minds of English-speaking readers in 2008. The mention of the problems of the DLM, "rampant titleism" etc, contains no reference to the fact that he worked to fix them, as per sources. "...thanks to contributions" is a POV phrase. "...frequent trips around the globe" likewise. It goes on in the same vein. I suggest we look at Draft 13, which is an attempt to remedy these issues. Rumiton (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Regarding Rumiton's first point, we have more than one source that says the subject's father was wealthy, or that the subject was raised amid luxury. Please note that India has more English speakers than Australia, for example, and we're writing for all readers regardless of their nation. It isn't biased to report what reliable sources say. Regarding the last two points, I don't see what POV is involved. Can you explain? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC) As I've said before, and I am not going to spell it out again, it's above for anyone to re-read, the vases thing is a WP:REDFLAG to me. I will not agree to any version of this going into the article. Likewise, I am against the tax-free comment for the reasons stated earlier. The jumble of premie statements does not work for me either. Let's rather work on Draft 13. Sorry. --Jayen466 23:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC) Why is the vase issue a redflag? The tax issue was reported in reliable sources and isn't disputed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC) How many sources have reported it? I am only aware of one, Rolling Stone magazine. Jayen466 00:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Reported which? The tax issue was reported by the wires services, etc. The vases issue was reported in one reliable source. What makes it so extraordinary that more sources are needed? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC) It seems apt to cause revulsion or indignation in the reader of this BLP. Jayen466 00:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC) The tax issue is not disputed, but I object to the way it is used, as per my earlier comment above: The mention that some vehicles were "reportedly bought tax-free due to the DLM's status as a church" I find inflammatory. To me, this passage reads like <vernacular> "The cheeky bastard! He got rich off his followers, and he didn't even have to pay sales tax. Let's hate him!" </vernacular> The fact is, if the U.S. government granted the DLM tax-exempt status, and the DLM used it, they were in their rights and we shouldn't be making a fuss over it because we don't like the DLM and are looking for ammunition to shoot them and Rawat down. At least this is how I will feel about it until and unless someone can demonstrate that there are reliable sources reporting that there was an investigation which found the DLM guilty of using its tax status inappropriately. A mere allegation that came to nought is irrelevant. Jayen466 00:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC) The text currently says: Some of these items were reportedly put at Rawat's disposition tax-free due to the DLM's status as a church. We have reports that the goods were bought tax-free by the church, and were for the subject's use. How would you suggest conveying that info in a better way? As for the vases issue, it directly concerns the subject's approach to material goods. It appears to be presented neutrally. We can't help it if incidents from the subject's life affect readers one way or another. Wikipedia is not censored. We could as easily say that reporting other incidents may be apt to cause sympathy on the part of readers, but that wouldn't be a reason to exclude them from the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC) A single mention of an anecdote ascribed to an unnamed source is not enough in my opinion to satisfy WP:REDFLAG, as well as various WP:BLP requirements. As for the DLM's tax-exempt status, we could mention it at that point in the timeline where the DLM gained that status. To expand on this, WP:BLP states explicitly, Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. — WP:BLP In my opinion, including this otherwise unreported claim from a 34-year-old Rolling Stone article would make us "the primary vehicle for the spread of a titillating claim about Rawat's life". WP:BLP further states, Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. — WP:BLP, emboldening present in the original The inclusion of this anecdote allegedly recounted by an unnamed person to an unspecified listener is not justified, given its lack of relevance in the existing literature about Rawat, which we are required to summarise fairly, giving WP:DUE weight to any and all accounts available to us in reliable sources. To sum up, I don't think Wikipedia would become a better encyclopedia by including it. We are here to write a fair, unbiased (and conservative, given WP:BLP) encyclopedia article, not a journalistic, cutting-edge exposé. Jayen466 14:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Before we get to the issue of satisfying REDFLAG, we first have to deal with whether REDFLAG is triggered. Considering the many sourcs we have which describe the playful and harmful lilas of Guru Maharaj Ji, it is not surprising or extraordinary that he would act as described in the anecdote. I don't see that the anecdote is titillating. It does not allege that he did anything illegal or immoral. Furthermore, the Rolling Stone is a highly regarded magazine, whose journalists have won numerous Pulitzer prizes.[26] So I don't think that REDFLAG is triggered, and if it is the it is satisfied by the fact that the matter is published in a highly reliable source. As for the new issue of BLP, that policy does not prevent the inclusion of matters that have been reported in reliable sources. The anecdote neither mocks nor disparages the subject. As for the taxes, the investigation was over whether the use of the tax exemption to purchase personal itmes for Maharaj Ji and the DLM executives was legal, not whether they did it. There's no question that they used the DLM to purchase cars and property for the guru's use without paying sales tax. Yes, we could handle this issue by a) mentioning that the DLM had tax exempt status and B) when we mention the purchase of cars and property mention that they were purchased by the tax-exempt DLM. I don't think we need to make a big deal about it, but it is factual. Are those your only concerns about this draft? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC) There have also been a couple of well publicised libel cases against Rolling Stone, where it was found that articles included entirely fabricated information. Even if this were not so, I am not likely to change my mind on this issue. As for the gift/tax issue, how many sources are there actually that mention gifts for Rawat being bought under tax-exempt status? As I said above, the present staccato jumble of premie statements does not work for me either. I'll try to rewrite it. Jayen466 20:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC) The only libel case I see concering Rolling Stone that I see was the DARE case, which concerned the notorious journalist Stephen Glass. The libel case was dismissed. I see that the magazine is used as a source in literally thousands of Wikipedia articles. I'll post a request for comment on WP:RSN to see what the community thinks about it. How many sources do we need? I only see one comment by a premie. How can one comment be a staccato jumble? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC) See WP:RSN#Rolling Stone. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC) The case against Rolling Stone was dismissed, but this does not change the fact that the statements printed in the Rolling Stone article were fabricated. The case against the journalist was not dismissed, he was found guilty, and Rolling Stone only employed fact checkers to verify what they had printed after the shit hit the fan, and then issued a string of corrections. The writer had invented people and conversations. Rolling Stone were cleared because they had not acted with malice. There was also at least one other libel case against Rolling Stone that was settled out of court, brought by a Mr Flynn, who Rolling Stone falsely alleged was a member of the Ku-Klux-Klan. (They had picked up a story from elsewhere without verifying it. The originators of that story were subsequently sued as well, and the decision went against them.) Jayen466 20:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Regarding the Rolling Stones - please make your case at WP:RSN. Since your opposition is to the source in general (rather than to the specific journalist or story) it should be handled at a community-wide level. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC) The only response so far is that Rolling Stone is a highly reliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· I've added a (lengthy) note on the background, and have also flagged the issue on the BLP noticeboard. --Jayen466 10:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC) The responses on both noticeboards seem to approve of the "vases" material as Francis drafted it. Are there any further objections to that part? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC) The vase story will need a lot of context if it is to be included.Momento (talk) 01:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Such as? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Maybe this from Galanter "He was after all, still a teenager, not above spraying his coterie with shaving cream for fun. Such pranks led them to speak of his "heavenly playfulness." He began dressing in western clothes and adopted a luxurious lifestyle that included setting up residence in a mansion and being ferried about in a limousine".Momento (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC) The issue here is his view of materialism. If you want to get into his lilas we have lots of sources for those. I agree that we should include more on them. Shall I post sourcescovering them and then we can decide which to add? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC) OTOH, it'd be better to leave off the extra lila anecdotes as those are lkely to get contentious. I think you'd suggested adding Mishler's complaint that the subject didn't act appropriately to the next paragraph - that should be sufficient. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Jayen, did you have any objections to the vases that haven't been answered in the noticeboards? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Well, Will, I still don't like it. The proposed sentence goes: According to Richard Levine in Rolling Stone a premie described that in the early 1970s Rawat fired a pistol at a number of prized vases in the backyard of the L.A. Residence "to teach us the worthlessness of material possessions." The sentence does not tell us an awful lot, except that Rawat (or his brother) on an occasion allegedly shot at some vases in his backyard. We don't know what "prized" means, who assessed that, whether they were qualified, and we don't know whether "to teach us the worthlessness of material possessions" is the invention of the premie – as we've seen, premies had a penchant for inventing all sorts of adventurous explanations for happenings – or whether this is something that the young Rawat is actually supposed to have said. To sum up, let's rather put in that he pushed people into pools, if we have several RS for that. Jayen466 12:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC) What does pushing people into swimming pools have to do with material possessions? Do premies have a penchant for inventing explanations? The only other anecdote about materialism I've read that is as good is the one about the subject's Mercedes getting hit by a follower's VW. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC) What does "good" mean here? Are we here to entertain people with "good" anecdotes? ;-) Re the penchant, we have reliable sources indicating that premies would ascribe coincidences to Rawat's doing, or, putting it differently, that they experienced synchronicities that they felt were connected to their involvement with him. Likewise, we have sources stating that premies were fond of interpreting Rawat's actions, and trying to see hidden meaning in his behavior, such as that he might be trying to teach them something by his actions. Do you agree? Jayen466 21:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC) What sources say that premies invent explanations? As for anecdotes, we're here to inform and interest readers. Anecdotes can do both. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC) "Invent explanations" were my words. But you just quoted such a source illustrating the imputation of meaning to me in RS/N. Worshipping the Absurd contains further examples of premies investing experiences with personal meaning where no such meaning is made explicit, or none would be apparent to any outside observer. Soul Rush by Collier contains examples: "Knowledge is working so powerfully in the world, I don't know how anybody can miss it." she quotes one premie as saying. Premies saw meaning where others saw none. Davies' comments about the pieing that we discussed the other day are another example. Etc. So premies saw deeper meaning in Rawat's actions where someone else might have seen none. That is what I meant. Jayen466 23:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC) The story simply is imprecise. It is hearsay. We don't know if those were Ming vases or vases someone got from a jumble sale, we're not sure if BBJ or GMJ did the shooting, we don't know if Rawat said anything about "the worthlessness of material possessions" or whether that was some premie's clever commentary after witnessing or hearing that story. It's a useless anecdote. If we want to cover Rawat's teaching re material possessions, we can quote him. Jayen466 00:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC) The draft clearly says that this is being told by a follower, so readers would not be given the mistaken impression that this was part of the official canon. The views of followers are significant. If we have an adequate source we could add that followers invest experiences with personal meaning. I'm beginning to think that a shooting-gallery approach is being taken to this material: every time an objection is addressed a fresh one pops up. Folks have responded on the WP:BLPN that this doesn't seem to be inappropriate. The source has been vetted on WP:RSN. What more do we need to do? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC) What more do we need to do? Simple: Make this article an encyclopedic one. Be judicious in the use of sources. Not adding content just because it is available. Apply good editorial judgment. Etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Is there a policy reason? So far editors on two noticeboards have reviewed the issue and found no problems. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Do premies have a penchant for inventing explanations? What does that mean? After your complaint about Rumiton I would held you to higher standards as it relates to comments about editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Who are you addressing? I was questioning Jayen's assertion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Again, Jossi- who are you addressing in your comment? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC) The vases/Rolling Stone issue is marked as "resolved" at WP:RSN#Rolling Stone: "we appear to have reached the conclusion that the suggested draft is an appropriate use of this particular source". Moving on is the message. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Jayen's re-writes Here is the re-write: On several occasions, reporters enquired of Rawat why he did not give his Rolls Royce away, in order to alleviate hunger or poverty. In response, Rawat explained that he only had one; once that was given away, people would still be hungry and poor, and he wouldn't have another one to give them. In addition, he stated that he gave something that was more valuable than money. His followers saw no conflict between his worldly and spiritual riches either. "Maharaj Ji's luxuries are gifts from a Western culture whose fruits are watches and Cadillacs," a spokesman explained. "He isn't saying, abandon the material world. He's saying it is our attachment to it that is wrong." In their view, the messiah had come as a king this time, rather than as a beggar. Other premies asserted that he did not want the gifts, but that people simply 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. Jayen466 20:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC) In the same paragraph, I would lose the sentence "Sources close to Rawat's mother said that his materialistic lifestyle was one of the reasons she disowned him.[63][64]" Instead, I would include a mention of her complaints in the sentence where we first mention her disowning him, so the new version of that sentence would be: She publicly disowned him in 1975, citing disagreement with his "materialistic lifestyle," and appointed her eldest son, Satpal, as leader of the Indian DLM. Rawat maintained the support of the Western disciples. Jayen466 20:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC) This passage: Former officials of the DLM in the 1970s, including the founding president, the vice president, and a financial analyst, complained that money was increasingly diverted to Rawat's personal use,[65] and that the movement appeared to them to exist only to support Rawat's "opulent existence".[66] Critics have complained that his lifestyle was supported by the donations of followers.[67] disregards what we know from Dettmers' statements, who states that the DLM pocketed personal gifts to Rawat into their own accounts. Once these private gifts were allocated correctly, it was no longer the case that an unjustifiably large amount of DLM moneys was diverted to Rawat's personal use. Jayen466 21:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Let's settle the Rolling Stone issue before tossing it out. Regarding your last two excerpts, I think the re-write about the mother is an improvement. I don't understand your objection to the last one, which is sourced reliably. Are you proposing we use forum postings as sources? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Are people okay with the rewrite in the first excerpt? Jayen466 21:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC) No, I am not suggesting we use forum postings as sources. But you allowed the other day that there's value in reading forum postings, user pages, self-published sources, etc., in order to understand the background and to learn about topics we may not know of otherwise. So, knowing what we do – for we have no reason to doubt Dettmers' account – and acting with good conscience to get this thing as right as we can, it seems to me that we can choose not to reproduce that particular bit of criticism; we still have the criticism that Rawat's opulent lifestyle was funded by followers' donations, which remains unaffected by this issue of how the DLM accounted for gifts to Rawat personally. Jayen466 11:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Interesting point Jayen about the finances. I am also aware that money given specifically to Rawat was used to finance DLM. In fact, without Rawat DLM would not have received a penny. I like your rewrite so far.Momento (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC) This article should be written based on what we find in reliable sources. If folks think that forum postings are reliable then that's fine, but thus far that hasn't been the standard. In the passage in quesiton we don't say that money was diverted for the subject's personal use - we say that some folks made the accusation. There is no question that they made that allegation, or that it was reported. That's as far as we're going. We can add the forum posting as a conflicting POV if folks agree to use foums as sources. Otherwise there's no need for a change in the text. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC) I think it's bad encyclopedic writing to report on accusations and then not to report on the outcome of ensuing investigations, just because there is no RS available that bothered to report the outcome. In this case, we know the outcome and know these specific accusations were unfounded. Responsible and NPOV encyclopedic writing would balance the accusation, or drop it if this is not possible for lack of sources. Jayen466 21:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC) The needs to be more about Rawat's attitude to "material possessions" and this from Melton - "Maharaj Ji, who frequently acted like the teenager that he was in public, was seen as immature and hence unfit to be a religious leader". Momento (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC) And let's make sure this is in "Mishler's charges found little support and have not affected the progress of the Mission.Momento (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC) There are two problems with "Mishler's charges found little support and have not affected the progress of the Mission", firstly it is now anachronistic and must be paraphrased to give it chronological consistency, secondly it is an expression of opinion, not separately sourced by Melton, thus a further level of paraphrase is required, so we would end up with something like "writing in 197?, J. Godon Melton observed that Mishler's charges found little support and did not affect the progress of the Mission." Frankly I don't see this as being very meaningful, it doesn't tell us anything about Rawat and adds nothing to the BLP, and even if applied to the DLM article it stands out as being a single observation about an organisation/movement that in terms of levels of support was patently in decline as is demonstrated by numbers of adherents stated by other reliable sources.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Jayen states we know from Dettmers' statements, who states that the DLM pocketed personal gifts to Rawat into their own accounts. Once these private gifts were allocated correctly, it was no longer the case that an unjustifiably large amount of DLM moneys was diverted to Rawat's personal use. That is a rather novel interpretation of what Mike Dettmers wrote.It is the case that the IRS accepted the argumented present by Dettmers in 1975, that donations gifted in the name of Guru Maharaj Ji were legally the personal property of Prem Rawat, however that is far from being "DLM pocketed personal gifts to Rawat". Dettmers makes it abundantly clear that these monies were held by DLM for purely practical purposes - Rawat as a fourteen/fifteen year old non American was not in a position to cash US cheques made out to Guru Maharaj Ji. Further, while Dettmers was arguing the case for Rawat's personal entitlement, there was a notable absence of any representative of the Divine Light Mission - a public charity - arguing for its entitelment to funds which were donated in the name of its Chief Minister, which is was how Guru Maharaj Ji was legally connected to the organisation and how prior to the 1975 IRS audit Rawat had his lifestyle underwritten directly from funds gifted to the organisation. There is no indication that any 'repayment' was made to the US DLM when the personal funds were transfered to Rawat's control, nor was any opportunity afforded to Mata Ji and/or Satpal to make a claim on funds that were donated to the head of the Indian Divine Light Mission, in his capacity as head of that Mission, i.e to Guru Maharaj Ji, not to Prem Pal Singh Rawat. Further although it was Dettmers' strategy that the separation of Rawat's personal funds from the DLM funds would halt the diversion of unjustified amounts for Rawat's personal use it is clear from the creation of initiatives like the Jets Acquisition Committee that diversion of organisational effort to achieve funds to support Rawat's lifestyle' continued well after 1975, and Dettmers ultimately acknowledged Rawat's personal greed continued to be fed by his followers and the organisations. How much any of this can inform the WP articles, I'm unclear about but I think Jayen is arguing from a point of misunderstanding.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Are you saying if someone made a check out to "Guru Maharaj Ji", it was really for the DLM, or Mata Ji? Jayen466 21:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Well I can’t give a definitive answer for each of what were, as far as I understand, many thousands of mainly small contributions. Certainly my own memory of the UK situation in the 72 to 75 period is that no clear distinction between Guru and organisation was given to the ‘punters’ and the operative assumption before 1975 was that gifts to the Guru were for the support of his work, not for his accrual of personal wealth. However that really doesn’t help us in writing a Wikipedia article and we have to make a reasoned assessment of the material that is available. For what it's worth (in WP:POV terms) I think this page [27]covers the territory well Mishler and Hand clearly identified Rawat’s wish for personal wealth as an issue that impacted on the DLM, and all the available sources indicate a conflation of the Guru with the organisation(s) even crediting Guru Maharaj Ji with the capacity to exert organisational control despite his status as a Minor and his lack of legal/constitutional position within the organisations. If Dettmers is taken to be accurate, we do have the statement that prior to 1976, Guru Maharaj Ji was listed as the Chief Minister of the Divine Light Mission Inc. Church. Based upon that information we can make a reasoned comparison with other religious leaders who have a title and or special name relative to their role in an organisation. For instance someone supporting the Catholic church who writes a cheque out to Il Papa or the Bishop of Rome or Holy Father or Supreme Pontif, would not usually be understood to be conferring a payment on Joseph Alois Ratzinger for him to buy icecream or a sports car. Equally a supporter of a local Synagogue giving a payment to Rabbi x might expect the money to go toward the purposes of the Synagogue, not on Scotch and Cigars for the Rabbi. The position of Mata Ji is significant because she had clear parental responsibility for Prem until early 1974, if the sums accrued in the DLM Inc. bank accounts until that date were actually gifted to Prem personally (and some may have been), rather than in his representative role as Chief Minister of DLM Inc. then Mata Ji should have been given access to those funds to manage on her child’s behalf. From Prem’s point of view everything worked out very conveniently – the collected sums were protected as Charity money inaccessible to Mata Ji, they were also inaccessible to the Indian DLM, which might reasonably have had a claim to donations gifted to its ‘satguru’, and bizarrely the sums were also inaccessible to DLM Inc. even when the organisation faced financial meltdown after the Millenium fiasco. Once Mata Ji, the Indian DLM and Mishler were sidelined, Charity protection was removed and Prem became a millionaire in his own right, the only gain to DLM Inc. from the Dettmers’ arrangement seems to have been that it was relieved of any liability for the Trancas Canyon property, but Prem retained personal control and or ownership of everything else that had been supplied to him via DLM Inc. without any compensation being paid to DLM Inc. I don’t see any simple, well sourced description of this history being possible, however I also see nothing in what Dettmers wrote, nor in a reasoned assessment of the position that Dettmers describes, that undermines the Draft 4 (v2.2)text: “Former officials of the DLM in the 1970s, including the founding president, the vice president, and a financial analyst, complained that money was increasingly diverted to Rawat's personal use,[65] and that the movement appeared to them to exist only to support Rawat's "opulent existence".[66] Critics have complained that his lifestyle was supported by the donations of followers.[67]”--Nik Wright2 (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Thanks. Will read the referenced material tomorrow. The phrase "complained that money was increasingly diverted to Rawat's personal use" I think is undermined by Dettmers saying that much money made out to GMJ was paid into DLM accounts for a period of time. As for donations only being for the work, I think premies can't have failed to notice Rawat arriving in Rolls Royces; he wrote them a thank-you letter for the house they had got him and his family, etc. I think people knew very well and at the time were fine with it. Jayen466 23:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Jayen, I think you are making unjustified assumptions, about what ‘people’ knew, about their expectations and about their understanding of the processes of what, was by then developing into a cultish organisation. You will not find any published accounts in the material targeted at premies despite DLM being presented as having ‘members’, those members had no means of empowerment. That most premies were blissfully (sic) unaware of what was going on can not be equated with being “fine with it” – you can’t express dissatisfaction if you are not given an indication of what is wrong, or even that there is something wrong. Mishler and Hand eventual revealed some of the problems but many premies, particularly those outside of the West Coast community never heard anything about Mishler or Hand other than they were ‘disgruntled’ and had misunderstood Guru Maharaj Ji’s message. Even so there was a major loss in support coincident with first Mata Ji’s criticisms, and then revelations by Mishler and others; of course the loss of support could be explained by other factors – but the point is support was lost when individuals, a large number of whom statistically, must have been among the donors of finance, had new information available, suggesting that in fact a very large number of supporters were not ‘fine’ with what had been happening, once they got to know about it. I have no personal experience of the Malibu property acquisition, however I do recall the fundraising carried out by officials of the UK Divine Light Mission charity over the acquisition of Rawat’s UK residence. The implication was that a property would be bought (and owned) by DLM, in fact the funds raised were used to rent a property which was eventually purchased by the same holding company that owns Rawat’s Malibu estate [28]. Explanations of ownership were provided on a rumour based ‘hush hush’ basis, in the case of the UK residence, as with ownership of Rolls Royces etc, the most common being – it was bought by a ‘wealthy supporter’ – a rock star, a film star, an entrepreneur – who couldn’t be named for reasons of modesty. Of course the premies were far too trusting and passive in their ‘membership’ of DLM but that was the whole point, the movement was specifically ‘disempowering’ of participation beyond robotic fulfilment of leadership diktat. In that context ‘fine with it’ could apply to every crack addict who has just acquired a hit.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC) To Jayen, remember that we aren't saying that money was diverted. We saying that Mishler et al. said it was diverted. Nothing that Dettmer writes now undermines the fact that those things were said then. Mishler's assertion was reported and Dettmer's was not. An internet forum posting doesn't negate a UPI interview almost 30 years earlier. It's interesting, but if we're not going to report it then there's not mich to discuss about it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC) It says nowhere that we have to report every accusation ever made, regardless of whether they were justified or not. Jayen466 12:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC) The Mishler et al. statements comprise a widely-reported view of the subject, and NPOV does require that we include all significant viewpoints. Unless Dettmers' forum posting is a reliable source then it really means nothing. (We can't have it both ways). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC) I think we need to lose the vice president (mentioned neither by Melton nor in Time), and the reference nos. 65 and 66 need to go together, at the end of the sentence. Then it should be covered by the sources. As it happens, what is cited to Garson in Time does not contradict Dettmers. Jayen466 13:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Nik Wright2 Comments on Draft 4 V2.2 V2.2 is IMO almost a completed work, although some of the prose is a bit tortuous, however there are two substantive points that I have concern about. Line 1. “In December 1973, when he turned 16, Rawat took administrative control of the Mission's U.S. branch.” This doesn’t accord with the precise description given by Melton - “ he took administrative control of the Mission’s separate American corporation” the term ‘Branch’ has particular meaning and substituting it for Melton’s very specific use of “American corporation” is not encyclopaedic in this context and I suggest sticking exactly to what Melton wrote in this case without any paraphrase. Line 30. “Among others, Bob Mishler, co-founder of DLM in the United States and former president of the business side of the mission.” The phrase “business side of the Mission” is confusing – Mishler was President of Divine Light Mission Inc. which ran everything DLM related in the US, apart that is from what was in Rawat’s personal financial control. The various ‘for profit’ subsidiaries of DLM Inc. were all legally responsible to the DLM board, over which Mishler ‘presided’ so there was no ‘separate’ ‘business side’ and unless there is a source which specifies Mishler’s role differently from him being president of DLM Inc. the text should simply read “co-founder and President of DLM in the United States, together with former DLM vice President Robert Hand ……..”--Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Re. "...almost a completed work..." not my view, nor my intention (tx for the compliment though): all what is needed is an improvement over the current version: if we're aiming at something everyone would consider a "completed" work, nothing is going to improve. And Wikipedia works differently: little steps of improvement, without an artificial endpoint of completion, that's the wiki system. Re. line 1: seems better to make it precise then, keeping to Melton's wording. Re. line 30: "business side of the Mission" refers to the wording used by the source: "... Suddenly there were new reports from people who'd actually managed the Divine Light Mission--Robert Mishler, the man who organized the business side of the mission and served for 5 1/2 years as its president, and Robert Hand Jr., who served as a vice president for two years. ..." (bolding added) I'd also refer to Haan, who explains the structure of the mission in a quite separate "commercial" and a "spiritual" hierarchy (both topped by Rawat): the former managed by directors, the latter represented by initiators (p. 45). --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Countries & continents - Gifts As I've said before this proposal needs more info on what Rawat was doing as a teacher as opposed to what the media thought he should be doing. For instance - "By 1975 Rawat's message had spread to 58 countries on six continents" . And more context "Gifts for Rawat were quite common since expression of thanks to him, as guru, were backed by years of Indian tradition".Momento (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Do you have that spread of message information in a reliable source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Cagan is reliable in the absence of any contradictory material from a source we might consider even more reliable.Momento (talk) 05:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC) No, it is not. It is a questionable source. See our discussion on the mediation page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Given PIP's QS status, this statement could be seen as unduly self-serving, so would need corroboration by another source. Jayen466 10:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC) The Dwonton statement, on the other hand, we should look at including. Jayen466 11:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC) PIP doesn't qualify as a QS. A QS is a source with a "poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions". None of the publishers or the author "have a poor reputation for fact-checking". Nor does PIP " express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions". And in this case statistics are neutral.Momento (talk) 05:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC) If you want to discuss the status of PIP please use the mediation page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Countries (bolding added): 1973 "The movement boasted 480 centers in thirty-eight countries around the world..." 1976 "... 55 countries around the world, ..." "There are ashrams operating [...] in almost every state in the United States and in over fifty countries." 1983 "[Rawat] has taken his message to more than 50 countries..." 1990 "The mission is [in] 53 countries..." 1993 "The Divine Light Mission (the original name of Elan Vital) was founded in India in 1960. Since that time, Maharaji (formerly known as Guru Maharaj Ji) has inspired a worldwide movement that is active in approximately 55 countries." --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Well done. Jayen466 19:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Brush fire Am I wrong, or is Cagan the only source for the content on the 1978 brush fire in Malibu? I've been looking for press reports about the event, but could find none. Removing the material: don't say it didn't happen, but lacking notability/reliable sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Well, found an oblique mentioning of the brushfire in a L.A. Times article written a few months after the fire, so I added that reference, but requesting better sources for the move to Miami Beach, and for the 1980 activities. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC) The fire was quite notable, but a little scorching damage wouldn't have merited reporting. Here's a bit from a report printed in Toronto (!): Until a two-day fire swept across 25,000 acres and destroyed more than 160 homes here, Malibu was the lush playground of the rich and famous, the epitome of California living. The mansion retreats of Buddy Hackett, Ali MacGraw and Clint Walker lined either the beach or the rough Santa Monica mountains facing the Pacific. Yesterday many of the residents of this exclusive beach community were searching the charred remains of their homes, some of which cost more than $1-million, in an effort to retrieve belongings that may have escaped the devastation of one of the worst brush fires in Los Angeles since 1970. The homes of singer Neil Young and actor Nick Nolte were destroyed. Actor Jack Lemmon's beachfront home was damaged, as were many others along the 10-mile stretch on Pacific Coast Highway about 20 miles north of Santa Monica. Among the lucky homeowners were actor Steve McQueen and Los Angeles Ram's owner Carol Rosenbloom, whose homes barely escaped the fire. Malibu and the Mandeville Canyon residential area, which includes the Pacific Palisades, were declared a state disaster area by Governor Jerry Brown on Tuesday. Federal aid is expected for the estimated 1,000 non-celebrities who were left homeless by the fires, which swept Los Angeles County on Monday and Tuesday. -"Brush fires ruin retreats of the rich" The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Oct 26, 1978. pg. P.15 Mandeville Canyon is far from Trancas, but fires hop and jump around. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Note that the report of a "lavish hill top estate" comes after the fire damage and the photo in Dart's article looks like a building site.Momento (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC) The property was referred to as an "estate" as early as 1976. and was called a "mansion" in 1975. Is Momento saying that between 1974 and 1975 the "little house" mentioned in PIP was replaced by a mansion? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC) I would imagine that the "little house" was renovated to accommodate Rawat's family as well as the DLM HQ.Momento (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC) It's fine to imagine, but when many reliable sources say one thing and one questionable source says something different then the simplest approach, Occam's razor, is that the reliable sources are correct and the questionable source is wrong. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC) By all means call it a "beautiful little home", "home base", "mansion", "lavish estate" etc, we just need to make sure that the description are dated, so that readers see the evolution.Momento (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC) No, we don't have any reliable sources for an "evolution". So far as I recall, the only reliable sources we have for changes to the place are about the installation of the heliport, but that wasn't until about 1980. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Actually just looking at Mark Forster's '79 article, he calls it "Divine Light Mission's palatial walled estate", so that will need to go in.Momento (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Why does it "need to go in"? What distinction is there between the home of Guru Maharaj Ji and the home of the spiritual head of the DLM? They were the same person. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Because it makes it clear that he didn't own it which is not clear the way Francis has written it.Momento (talk) 01:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC) I don't think it's clear from the Forster article who owns the property either. Most sources don't distinguish the sutble differences between DLM and Guru Maharaj Ji. But if you want more from Forter there's plenty in there that we can add. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Rereading the draft I think it's left properly ambiguous. While in one place it is described as "Rawat's Malibu home", it is undisputed that he made it his home, regardless of who held the deed. In any case, we may have to delete that sentence if we can't find a reliable source for the brushfire damaging the buildings. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Chronologically, DLM bought the property for use as an HQ and a residence for Rawat and Rawat moved there. Since DLM purchased it and owned it, it probably shouldn't be in this article at all, only that Rawat moved to Malibu in 1974.Momento (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC) It was his home, regardless of who held the deed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC) I have never heard from anyone at anytime that the Malibu estate was purchased for the purposes of being "DLM headquarters." Rawat's thank you letter to premies for his new home was published in DLM's Divine Times, Vol.3, Issue 4, dated October 15, 1974. In it Maharaji states: "By the united efforts of all of you, Durga Ji and myself have moved to a much more suitable residence in Los Angeles. It is a large, beautiful house with all of the necessary arrangements to facilitate my work." He signs it "Sant Ji Maharaj." So, perhaps that may put to rest any speculation about the house on the Malibu bluff overlooking the Pacific Ocean. It's prime real estate in a very wealthy community. Also, no one ever has been free to go to any of the residences of Rawat without explicit invitation, i.e., anyone who ever was invited to "The Residence" was considered an extraordinarily fortunate devotee. Hope this helps to explain the issues surrounding the Malibu "Residence." Sylviecyn (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Thanks Sylviecyn. So it appears Rawat himself called it a "large" house at the time. Jayen466 23:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC) People who live in rented accommodation call it their home, so the point must be made that Rawat didn't own it which isn't clear at the moment.Momento (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC) We do say that the DLM bought it and that it served as their HQ. Apart from that, Dettmers, in the above-quoted non-RS, makes it clear that the DLM asked Rawat to move out of the Malibu house, since otherwise more DLM funds would be seen to be going to his personal upkeep than would be advisable for the audit. However, according to Dettmers, once gifts to GMJ personally were properly accounted for, it turned out that Rawat had enough money to pay for Malibu himself, and Rawat refused to leave the house when asked to by Mishler. I am not saying any of that should go in the article, but it seems to me Rawat kind of did own the house, more so than the DLM. Jayen466 23:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC) The chronology is wrong. Rawat can't move into the house until it is purchased. Therefore it should say - "In 1974 DLM purchased a 4 acre property in Malibu for $400,000 which served as the DLM's West Coast headquarters and as a residence for Rawat who relocated in November from Pacific Palisades citing security concerns". The description of the house comes from 1979 and belongs further down the article.Momento (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC) It would be harder on the reader to move the description to another part of the article. There's no indication that the house changed. At most, we might say, "...later described as..." Since the subject himself calls it a "large, beautiful house" in 1974, and a 1975 source calls it a "mansion", I don't see any real need for a change. There's no indication that Rawat paid any rent, and we have a source that says the DLM paid the mortgage. Somehow, the DLM doesn't exist anymore but Rawat is still occupying the house. Overall, I think the current text in the draft is best. Sine we don't know the exact details it's better to leave it vague rather than try to create false precision. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC) There's nothing false about the precision, you know what Francis thinks about vagueness. First DLM bought the property and then Rawat moved in, simple. It can't be any other way. And any description must appear chronologically.Momento (talk) 06:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC) I don't think that using terms like "needs to be" and "must" are helpful. And there's absolutely no "need" for descriptions to appear chronologically by the publication date of the source. If there were we'd have to re-write the article from top to bottom. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC) The whole article is based on chronology. His childhood in India, followed by coming to the west, followed by marriage and rift, followed by westernization etc. Getting the chronology right is fundamental to the accuracy and understanding of the subject. It's not optional for an encyclopedia.Momento (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC) We're describing the house that was purchased in 1974, so that is where the description should go chronologically, not the date when the description was written, unless there's some evidence that the description isn't accurate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC) So we can describe Rawat in the 70s section as a "messenger of peace"{ since that was how was described later? I don't think so.Momento (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC) I dunno, what's the source and context? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC) According to DIGNITY AND PROSPERITY FOR PEACE, an article La Sicilia, July 2nd, 2008.Momento (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC) I think this is getting rather off topic. The existing text in the article is that it was called a "lavish walled estate". We discussed this on the article talk page months ago. No one is disputing that that term was used. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC) You asked a question and I replied. And it is important that logic and chronology are respected. Another example of incorrect chronology is this - "Rawat's marriage to a non-Indian finally severed Rawat's relationship with his mother.[38][39] She publicly disowned him in 1975 and appointed her eldest son, Satpal, as leader of the Indian DLM, while Rawat maintained the support of the Western disciples. Most of the mahatmas either returned to India or were dismissed". It should be "Rawat's marriage to a non-Indian finally severed Rawat's relationship with his mother.[38][39] While Rawat maintained the support of the Western disciples most of the Indian mahatmas either returned to India or were dismissed. Mata ji appointed her eldest son, Satpal, as leader of the Indian DLM and publicly disowned Rawat in 1975". Anyway the whole section is needs a rewrite but Francis seems reluctant to listen to my opinion.Momento (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Actually, I agree on the chronology aspect. We should report in chronological sequence – not according to publication dates, but according to the time at which the described events took place – and should stick fairly strictly to the real-life timeline. That'll also save us from the temptation of grouping things into OR-based themes. Jayen466 00:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC) No one is disputing that material should be covered in chronological order. I've been a proponent of that all along. But that can be done too strictly. For example, elements of the Indian customs/finance issue were still coming out in the summer of 1973, after the pie incident. Even so, it's better to handle the customs/finance all at once, rather than jumping back and forth between that and the customs issue. The current paragraph in the draft is:"In November 1974 Rawat moved to a four-acre property in Malibu, California.[42][43] Purchased by the DLM for $400,000, the property also served as the DLM's West Coast headquarters.[42][43] It was described as a "lavish hilltop estate" in the press.[44]" Rather than moving the material it's makes more sense to simply insert "later described". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC) "later described" Why? The logic seems to be off here, unless you would agree to Momento's argument above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Good Will, because chronological means that it must be "In 1974 DLM purchased a 4 acre property in Malibu for $400,000 which served as the DLM's West Coast headquarters and as a residence for Rawat who relocated in November from Pacific Palisades citing security concerns". Any comments from 1979 must go after the bush fire which occurred in 1978. Simple. And why just choose "lavish estate", the religious writer of the LATimes John Dart called it "Land and buildings".By the way People magazine has him living in Denver in June 1976. "Accompanied by his wife and several Mission officials, he left his plush $80,000 home in Denver, now headquarters of the movement in this country, to travel to India." Momento (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC) I think you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill. But we can use the earlier descriptions - "large house" and "mansion", and then use the "lavish walled estate" part later. Note that we still haven't found a reliable source for the 1978 brush fire impacting the subject. We do have a source saying the subject moved to Miami to have better access to international flights. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Please do not characterize several editors good faith efforts to introduce chronology into the article as "making a mountain out of a molehill". PIP provides an eye witness description of the damage.Momento (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC) There's nothing uncivil about saying that the importance of this editing issue has been overblown, in my opinion. If you disagree please take it up with the mediator. PIP isn't a reliable source, see the mediation page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Momento is confusing, on the one hand logic and chronology, and list order on the other. When writing anything that has a chronological element, and which deals with more complexity than a mere list of events or characters, it will usually be necessary to have chronology subservient to the need for concurrency of related concepts. The issue is particularly pertinent where the concepts are concerned with overlapping events which have duration and which overlap without having contemporaneous start and/or end points. The English language is structured with a high degree of tolerance to allow this subservience of chronology, without consequent loss of meaning. I hope that Momento has simply misunderstood this issue because otherwise his points look like tendentious editing. The current version of 4 (v2.2) is perfectly adequate in terms of its relatedness of concepts having priority over chronology, not withstanding that there is a question over the adequacy of the ‘brush fire’ reference. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC) I will say that draft 4 does – as did some of our earlier drafts – tidy up some of the chronological jumps that we have in the present version of the article (notably around the house). Jayen466 01:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Draft 4 (v2.3) Some minor changes resulted from the v2.2 discussions above ([29]), but it appears we finished the discussions, leading in some instances to "no change" (e.g. the vases/Rolling Stone issue was settled at WP:RSN#Rolling Stone. So proposing v2.3 for implementation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC) My objection against the vase sentence stands unchanged; I don't agree with the editorial judgment. I had offered a re-write for the Rawat and premie quotes above, Momento concurred. I suggested moving Mataji's reference to Rawat's materialistic lifestyle to the earlier paragraph which reports her denouncing him, Will concurred. I pointed out today that neither Melton nor Time seem to refer to the vice president, and suggested placing refs 65 and 66 together at the end of the sentence, since it synthesises or summarises both sources. Jayen466 18:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Re: 1) Are you proposing to hold up this draft due to your opposition? Do ytou acknolwege that two noticeboards have reviewed the matter and found it accetable? 4) Are you saying we need a citation for Hand, or that reference to him should be removed? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC) As I have repeatedly said Draft 4 (v2.3) is hugely biased. We say he lives like "a millionaire" and then we provide a completely redundant example of what a "millionaire" lifestyle entails - "the Malibu estate, Rawat had homes in Denver, London, New York and India;[47][48][29] he had two planes (later a private jet),[47] sports cars and motorcycles at his disposal, a Rolls-Royce awaited his arrival in London, and a chauffeured Mercedes-Benz 600 was on hand in Denver". Complete over kill, undue weight and chronologically distorted. Likewise we already say that the lifestyle was possible because of "contributions from his Western devotees" but a few sentences down we provide the redundant " all of them said to be gifts from disciples". And then we go on about Rolls Royces again. I have rewritten Draft 4 (v2.3) as Draft 14 without the undue weight, without the over kill, without the material that belongs to DLM and with a few bits of necessary context.Momento (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Re the vases, my suggestion is we drop that sentence and try to get the rest of the draft sorted. Re Hand: We could either delete the mention (in the sentence cited to Melton and Time) or add a reference if there is another suitable reference tying him to the cited statements (I don't know if there is and haven't researched it). What do you think of the rewrite for the Rawat/premie quotes; any good? Jayen466 00:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC) One thing that doesn't work well in draft 4 yet is that we introduce Mishler's criticism re diversion of funds, without mentioning him by name, and then introduce him by name in the following paragraph, making it appear as though the "founding president" and Mishler might be two different persons. Jayen466 01:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Are you proposing to hold up this draft due to your opposition? I would argue that there is merit in the arguments presented. I am sure that there are ways to find common ground if effort is made in that direction. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC) There are also unresolved issues with several sentences, that for some unknown reason have been not been addressed fully. On the first sentence, for example, there is a counterpoint missing which was added on Proposal 13: Beginning a process of democratizing and secularizing the movement, he also began to asserted his independence from his mother, Mata Ji, who returned to India with his brother Satpal.[246][247][151] - Basically there is well sourced content on later proposals that ought to be considered. And that is just the first sentence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Are you proposing to hold up this draft due to your opposition? Might I ask you and Francis to rethink your position on including this sentence? Because I doubt you would argue as forcefully for inclusion of this content if this were just any run-of-the-mill Wiki bio. However tempting, illustrative or fitting the mental image conjured up by the sentence may seem to be, taking a hard look at the statement, and scrutinising it for what proportion of it yields certain, incontrovertible facts, there is no encyclopedic value apparent. In addition, the allegation is to our knowledge only present in a single journalistic source that is 34 years old. Jayen466 19:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Draft 14 I assume you'll flesh out the references in due course? Jayen466 00:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC) I still believe Draft 14 is viable. Adding the sources is quite straight-forward. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC) I'll start assembling the references immediately.Momento (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Draft 14 appears to be a big step backwards in terms of reaching consensus. It quite simply doesn't discuss Rawat's 'opulent lifestyle', which is the purpose of this section. The key points that need to be brought back in include the Malibu house, the cars, the planes, etc. In addition, the points about his continuing wealthy lifestyle despite the financial problems from Millennium '73 need to be re-inserted as a starting point towards a balanced section. Savlonn (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC) The sentence I have the most problem with is: ...contributions from his Western devotees, which made it possible for him to follow the lifestyle of an American millionaire – running a household for his wife, his brother and sister-in-law, Raja Ji and Claudia, as well as financing travel for his entourage of close officials on his frequent trips around the globe to attend the Mission's festivals."Savlonn (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC) This sentence describes a typical high net worth lifestyle, but not an 'opulent/luxurious' lifestyle, and thus appears to be quite misleading. Rawat wasn't biographically noteable for being able to run a household for his family and finance travel; he was noteable for a luxurious lifestyle as described in previous drafts. This doesn't come across at all with the above description. Savlonn (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC) That sentence is in most of the drafts we have been discussing recently, incl. Draft 4. Jayen466 18:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Yes it is, but my concern is all about context. In the other drafts, this sentence doesn't stand on its own, but is immediately followed by specific examples of his lifestyle, such as the Malibu house being described as av"lavish hilltop estate", etc. In draft 14, there is merely a justification for gifts of wealth in the following paragraph, without specific examples. Thus, in Draft 14 the sentence I quoted is left to stand on its own and is much more central to 'painting the picture' of Rawat's lifestyle than in other drafts. Savlonn (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC) The following paragraph does keep the reference to Rawat's teenage fascination with cars, airplanes, stereos and computer.However, with the omission of the key point that he actually had real collections of them available to him, this point could apply as much to me as to him!Savlonn (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC) In my opinion, the draft loses a little too much of the materialistic issues we set out to address with this proposal, but we should look at including the information given on Rawat's activities in this time period that is missing in the other drafts. Jayen466 19:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Draft 14 says he leads the "lifestyle of a millionaire" and then we mention "primarily interested in the accumulation of wealth, rather than changing the world" the we mention his followers we're "more than happy to supply him with luxuries” then we mention "a helipad on the Malibu estate". Four mentions! Surely any independent reader will get the impression that Rawat lived the life of a millionaire and was supplied with luxuries to the point that he was criticized for it and had use of a helicopter at his Malibu estate. Any more is overkill.Momento (talk) 05:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC) (outdented reply) Yes, an independent reader reader will get the impression that he was wealthy, and for most biographies of wealthy people, I would agree this is sufficient. However, not in this case, as much of Rawat's early notability was around his not just wealthy, but extraordinarily luxurious lifestyle, and this does not come across in your draft. The descriptions of his Rolls Royce fleet and aircraft were not placed in the previous drafts for 'titillation', but to describe the reality of his lifestyle, such as is biographically notable. Savlonn (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC) The balance is gained through additional context, which I am all for. If the biography also emphasizes points such as: his young age, born into luxury/high caste, tradition of gurus receiving luxurious gifts, and contemporary media bias, overkill and errors, then we will have a balanced, factual biography in which in the independent reader can come to their own conclusions/judgment of Rawat's character.Savlonn (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Regarding specific of draft 14: * Satpal is introduced as Mata Ji's eldest son in Para 2, but is mentioned without this context earlier in para 1. Can this context be moved to the first reference to Satpal Savlonn (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Done.Momento (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC) * Para 3 - reference to fascination with cars, airplanes, stereos and computers. As per my previous comment, this could apply to just about any teenage male without mentioning that his collection of cars and airplanes weren't models but the real thing! Savlonn (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Removed.Momento (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC) * Para 4 -defamation suit. This is written from the first person voice e.g. "Rawat stepped forward immediately" rather than as quotation from sources as in other paragraphs. This change of voice makes the first person sections appear objective and indisputable, whilst the sections quoting from 3rd parties appear more subjective. Savlonn (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC) All previous paras say the same "Rawat took administrative control", "he obtained a court order" etc, so not sure what you mean.Momento (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC) * Last para. I have multiple problems with the reference to the Malibu estate. Firstly, the prior context has been removed, so the reader has no idea what the Malibu Estate you are referring to is. Secondly, the helicopter landing pad is only mentioned in reference to a local dispute. This context completely removes the helicopter pad from the perception of any relationship to Rawat's wealth or lifestyle. I know that this has been in several previous drafts, but at least in those drafts the background of the Malibu estate being provided as a luxurious home for Rawat's family has been given.Savlonn (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Added Malibu estate to address this issue.Momento (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC) It's not clear why Sat Pal (or Satpal, let's be watchful that we use consistent spelling throughout the article) would have launched a defamation suit against his younger brother. If memory serves, Satpal passed a picture of Rawat and his wife kissing to the press, and Rawat's side then did something similar in response. I don't necessarily want to get into all that detail, but as it is, the reader may ask themselves, What defamation? Perhaps we can agree to drop "defamation" and that just "lawsuits" will do for present purposes. Jayen466 00:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC) All we have is "defamation". What is interesting is the number of scholars who claim the court case was a battle for DLM launched by Rawat.Momento (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC) How about we start the 80's with Rawat flying his own 707 around the world. One sentence conveys a lot about him as a teacher, pilot, millionaire?Momento (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Sure, why not. Jayen466 00:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Unfortunately, we are back at a stalemate, as the references to Rawat's lifestyle have not been re-inserted. There's no details about the cars and planes, and when the reference to Malibu estate was put back in, the description of it as a 'lavish estate' (which is the central purpose of this section to describe Rawat's luxurious/opulent lifestyle) was omitted. This is unacceptable. Savlonn (talk) 07:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC) In the Bill Gates article his $125 million house gets just "Bill Gates' house is a 21st century earth-sheltered home in the side of a hill overlooking Lake Washington in Medina, Washington. According to King County public records, as of 2006, the total assessed value of the property (land and house) is $125 million, and the annual property tax is $991,000". No tabloid adjectives like "lavish" though I'm sure hundreds of newspapers and magazines would have used every available superlative and not a word about his other properties. Even the Wiki article on the house itself boasts only one adjective for the 66,000 square feet (6,100 m²) house on a 5.15 acres (20,800 m²) lot and that is "large". And Gates' multibillionaire lifestyle is covered with "Gates is also known as an avid reader and the ceiling of his large, home library is engraved with a quotation from The Great Gatsby.[39] He also enjoys playing bridge, tennis, and golf". Nothing about his cars and planes although he has them [30]. In other words the Gates article follows BLP policy and has been written "conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives". This is the style we should be aiming for and which Draft 14 achieves. We should have an RFC for both drafts and ask independent editors to say which draft best follows BLP policy and is appropriate for an encyclopedia.Momento (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC) That's not a good way of building consensus among involved editors. I note that we've made several requests for comments on noticebaords and some editors here have ignored the input we've received there. I think that we should see what the new mediation can bring to this dispute. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Apples and oranges, Momento. One cannot compare the treatment of Bill Gates's wealth to the treatment Prem Rawat's wealth in their BLPs. Bill Gates has worldwide household name recognition as the self-made billionaire who founded Microsoft. His wealth isn't a contentious issue, nor is the cost of his house, his lifestyle, nor is it a contentious issue concerning how his house was paid for. Bill Gates didn't solicit donations from Microsoft employees in order to purchase his home, nor did Microsoft ever hold the deed to Gates's home. On the other hand, Prem Rawat doesn't have any name recognition in the U.S. or worldwide, he didn't obtain wealth conventionally as Bill Gates did (self-made man), and so much more needs to be explained about Rawat's wealth as a leader of an NRM. Hope this clarifies. Sylviecyn (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Your assertion that Gates' wealth is less contentious than Rawat's is incorrect. Gates' article says "Many decisions that led to antitrust litigation over Microsoft's business practices have had Gates's approval. In the 1998 United States v. Microsoft case, Gates gave deposition testimony that several journalists characterized as evasive". "Despite Gates's denials, the judge ruled that Microsoft had committed monopolization and tying, blocking competition, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act". Imagine if Gates has given away his OS for free.Momento (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Momento, if you want to write up an entire page describing PR's house and linking it to our article here, including all the details about the house, grounds, and interiors, then yes, we can leave out much of the detail about it in this article. Otherwise, as said by Sylviecyn, you're comparing apples to oranges (additionally, to all the ways she lists above). The article on the house even includes the exact address, a much further invasion of privacy than the one you claimed when there was a picure of PR's house in an article, and yet you claim that the Gates' article follows BLP policy, and is conservative in its approach to Gates' privacy. I'm not sure how that can be. -- Maelefique (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Google "Bill Gates house" and you get 43,000 mentions. Google "Prem Rawat's house" and you get 11, and only two relate to his house. So Gates house is more notable by a factor 4,000 to one and deserves an article. And it is Gates' article that follows BLP policy, not the article on his house.Momento (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC) On an unrelated note, I'm not sure what the status of these pages are anymore. The fact that the MedCab is closed and the formal mediation case is now open may render this page moot. I think AGK will need to be asked, but for now, the status of these pages remain unclear. Steve Crossin Contact/24 09:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC) References (please start new sections above this section)