User talk:Steven Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

DuPertuis?

I've read excerpts of her work, and I don't think wording like this

Dupertuis describes Rawat's role as Master as emerging from both theological and experiential aspects, and as not being the sole focus or generator of charisma.

is not really an accurate appraisal of her work. It sounds as if her conclusions were that he isn't a charismatic authority figure, and I don't think that's the case. Has anyone else read her? Mael-Num (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That is as close as I could stay to the source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You can add a second, alternate wording to the proposals page. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 18:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I will try, though previous attempts on my part to write improvements met with a bit of negative reception from particular editors[1]. Mael-Num (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a helluva time even finding the full text on this article (20+ years old and published by the University of Guam...go figure). I have access to JStor and LexisNexis, and still no dice. I'm still looking, but I'm gonna need more time.

Or maybe someone else could help me out with a copy? Someone's gotta have it, as part of that quote (the "charisma was not an impediment for some devotees" bit) doesn't appear anywhere in the online version I found at Rick Ross' place. Mael-Num (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a copy that I can send to anyone who emails me a request. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Part of what the draft may be summarinz is this paragraph:

• • Charisma in Sant Mat/Radhasoami/DLM tradition can best be understood in terms of darshan for which, according to Bharati, "absolutely no parallel" can be found "in any religious act in the West ..." (1970:161, cited in Eck, 1981:5). Darshan means "sight"—of the deity or the guru who embodies him/her, usually for the purpose of imbibing his/her divine powers or grace (Babb, 1981; Eck: 1981). It implies sight on a rich multiplicity of symbolic and spiritual levels which demonstrate a complex mix of doctrinal and mythic, perceptual and visionary, interactional and experiential dimensions in the relationship between a charismatic spiritual leader and his or her followers.

It goes on to decribe in greater detail, including the DARSHAN OF THE ABSOLUTE (meditation), the DARSHAN OF THE LIVING MASTER (the physical darshans of Prem Rawat), DARSHAN VIA THE COMMUNITY OF DEVOTEES (satsangs). I think anyone who wants to summarize it needs to read it in full. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have the full article, Will. (any reason of THE ALL CAPS?). The material I added is related specifically to the subject being treated in this paragraph: charismatic authority. So, what is your point? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(The caps were there because I was copying and pasting from the paper. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC))

Jossi, can you post the text you are summarizing? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As luck would have it, my sister phoned tonight, and the academic institution she teaches at apparently pays for the JStor tier that includes sociology papers written 20 years ago in Guam (luxury!), unlike my school. So, I have a copy if you're in need, Will. Just tell me where you'd like it.

Wait...that didn't come out right. Mael-Num (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is the text that is summarized in the proposed text: The master in person emerged both theologically and experientially as neither the sole focus nor the unique generator of charisma. Rather he represented a conceptual link which defined and integrated a diffuse set of experiences. Continued adherence to this religion depended on acceptance of this linkage of experiences as well as continued meditational efforts to achieve them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The part I was looking for is here:

Several years of practice and much satsang among followers strengthened their competence in meditation and confidence in its results, leading for many to increasingly confirming darshan experiences and deeper belief in Guru Maharaj Ji as Satguru. But at the same time, this increased competence led many others, who tired of the restrictions and eccentricities of DLM life, to discover that they had learned to "experience God on their own and had little further need of Guru Maharaj Ji as spiritual interpreter or guide. They thus drifted away not in disillusionment but in fulfillment. (21) The very effort involved in learning to recognize charisma, then, often led to a diminishing interest in doing so.

The more I read DuPertuis' work, the sketchier she seems as a source. When an academic spouts quotes like this:

I started hallucinating, everything started moving. I felt like I was on a psychedelic, . . . and then the whole stage just became white light - I just couldn't see anything. I was completely disoriented, but I just felt so much love that it's almost too intense, and I just couldn't take it .

I start to question their objectivity as a scientist. Plus, in the previous quoted section, she clearly has no basis or rationale for saying how she knows people left in fulfillment, or that it was their ability to recognize charisma that spurred their disinterest in Rawat. She indicates no methodology to determine this, so she cannot possibly have any insights there.

I like the earlier parts where she's sythesizing a hypothesis. I'll reread this tomorrow and hopefully we can all discuss it more. I'm just saying, this seems less than ideal as an academic source. Mael-Num (talk) 03:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Are we now engaged in literary criticism? Or are we supposed to simply refer to cited material published in reputable publications? I would argue that it is the latter. What would really help, is to do the work and make proposals in the proposals page. We are at that stage in which long-winded discussions do not yield much usefulness as it relates to content. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, are we? You'd argue that what is the latter?

Oh, and Jossi...you're treading dangerously close to being uncivil. Mael-Num (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not. Just tired of the long diatribes and debates that leave not much content on the table. After all, we are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia, not just engaging in endless debate, right? Look forward to your proposals. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm neither required to submit a proposal, nor disengage from debate. You are required to remain civil. Hopefully this clears up your obvious confusion. Furthermore, by your apparent confusion and admission, you must be tired. Why not take a break? You may be surprised by the progress that can be made in your absence! Mael-Num (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, we are supposed to discuss the edit and not the editor, right? So, if an editor does not provide useful text for articles, or proposes edits and material for consideration, there is nothing to discuss, is it? So from now on, I will simply ignore comments made that do not move this mediation forward, which has been put in place to make progress in the article, and not just to facilitate endless debates. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As I have both provided useful text for articles, and proposed edits and material for consideration, I fail to see your point. Of course, you are free to (continue to) ignore any and all of my contributions, now and in the future. Mael-Num (talk) 02:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would argue strongly for using DuPertuis as a source, unless all Sociological reference is to be abandoned. DuPertuis' clear statement of her own experience and her reports of unjudged first hand testimony is grounded in the established Sociological approach of [Qualitative research], and while Social Science is not "Science", it is certainly a discipline acceptable to most encyclopaedists. The source of difficulty that I see is whether the role of 'darshan' should or should not receive fuller explanation as a develoment of the section on charismatic leadership --Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The section is about charismatic authority and we are describing the opinions of scholars on the subject. That is exactly what we are and should be doing. Discussions about that if Social Sciences are science or not should not be part of these discussions. Discussions about the difference between hard science and soft science, are better held at Social sciences ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed. A ground rule I laid down when I took on this case was civility/NPA. And, if I see fit, I'll let people know about incivility. Let's keep discussion on topic. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 20:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

DuPertuis has:

The master in person emerged both theologically and experientially as neither the sole focus nor the unique generator of charisma. (section "Discussion" - 2nd sentence of 1st paragraph)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dupertuis and Schnabel

Note that DuPertuis clarifies with an example what Schnabel describes as "staging":

Western devotees reorganized the ritual by lining up the devotees beforehand, seating Guru Maharaj Ji higher up so his feet, now at chest level, would be quicker to kiss. They even experimented: once they had two lines, one passing by each foot; and once they set Guru Maharaj Ji ,and j his throne on a jeep which drove slowly by two miles of lined-up devotees. They finally settled on a long, cloth-draped blue tunnel through which devotees could file silently, leaving the world's mentality, stepping into the divine route to their guru's presence. (section "Darshan of the Living Master" - end of 1st paragraph)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit protected

As no counter proposals have bee submitted, I will ask this for material to be added to the article via edit-protected template as agreed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should do it Jossi? Also, note that two users are either still blocked, or not yet aware of these precedings. Perhaps a few days should be given first. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 15:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. We shall wait for couple of days then. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, just one other thing, I'd prefer to do the editprotected requests myself. That way, I can say, "please insert proposal X into article Y per consensus at page Z.". And then, if there's disagreements, they can take the issue up with me, not a party in the case. Okay with you? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 15:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, wait a minute - no one agreed to this version. Is specifically asked for us to wait untoil Francis comes back from his block. Is there a hurry? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you miss my comment above? I said that we can wait a few days to see if there are counter proposals. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Also note that if an editor gets blocked for probation violation, there is no reason to wait for them. Editing is a privilege, not a right, which they forfeit when they violate page probation. (if a user gets blocked next for a month, will we "wait"? Of course not.) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I see no hurry. Although I bet after this case is eventually over, I will be known on Wikipedia as that guy who mediated Prem Rawat. :P. Anyway, I agree, it's best to wait until there's a clear consensus. I've also requested the users be unblocked so they can enter the discussion. (their block has expired). I think edit warring is impossible on the Prem Rawat article, don't you? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• There's always an opportunity for edit warring. With Prem Rawat protected the dispute may move to another article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• And when that happens, there are other alternative options.. But I hope it won't get to that :) Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have a much more positive outlook. My experience is that if there is active participation in mediation, these issues are very easily dealt with, in particular when we have article probation (which is working BTW). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, indeed. I feel this can be mediated well as well. I'm just saying there are other options if necessary. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 20:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• I would appreciate a comment from Steve about this idea of "waiting for users to come back from blocks". My argument is above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm. Well, indeed. Editing is a privelige, not a right. Now, please, read both of this and this. It's basically my full explanation of why I had the page protected. I feel that protection of the article would reduce the activity on Arbitration Enforcment. Basically, it would delay the mediation. Also, I've said before that I'm in this one for the long run, so if I become known as "that Prem Rawat mediator guy", then so be it. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 20:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• This material is highly technical. Summarizing obtuse sociologicial papers is not like deciding on whether to report a bond amount. Pushing through contentious, complicated material while an experienced, interested editor is briefly blocked doesn't seem like the best way of proceeding. If we want the best article possible then let's make sure we're making use of all resources, including editors. Unless we can get more viewpoints on this material I oppose making the edit. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• I do not know what you keep pushing this point, as we have all agreed to wait for few days. BTW, you may find this material obtuse, but for me and maybe for others it is not the case. Opposing an edit on the basis of "I don't know enough about the subject" is simply antithetical to this project's aims, and we cannot force editors to make comments or propose alternative proposals, can we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• You are seeking to make an edit to a protected page which you have said you would not edit. If your proposal meets with approval from involved editors then there's no harm done. But if doesn't then the edit shouldn't be made. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Sorry? I understand that the agreement is that any edits will be made only if there is consensus. We gauge consensus by talk page debates and discussions. And that is exaclty what these pages are for. I, or anyone else by that matter, can offer proposals for discussion, so I do not know what are you implying. Also check the arbCom case decision which does not preclude my participation in talk, or actually even editing these articles directly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, and I'm just saying that I don't see a consensus here. The lack of an alternate proposal doesn't equal consensus for your proposal. The status quo is the alternate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Not really... See [2]], which will make things much easier. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• If Steve thinks there's a consensus favoring this version then he's welcome to say so. As for myself, I'd like to see input from more editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Sure, but if other editors decide not to contribute, there is no reason to ignore well researched material as per the proposal I offered. It includes material from three six additional sources on the subject, published in highly reputable books. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, there's also consensus by silence. If there's a certain amount of time given, where no objections or alternate proposals are offered, then consensus would be assumed. Perhaps you should send a message to all the others, Jossi? Steve Crossin (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Sure, placed note at Talk:Prem_Rawat#Proposal_2_in_mediation_page ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Great, give it some time and we will see how they respond, or if they respond at all. Steve Crossin (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, Slow and steady wins the race :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Section is good, I tidied it up a bit. Jayen466 10:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I will withdraw my proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I find the first reference to Weberian aspects of charismatic authority in the first sentence to be too esoteric for the typical reader, and thus decrease the Readability of the article. Though we are referring to scholarly, academic material, we are not attempting to write at the same level, but to provide an article that a broad section of the public can comprehend.

Secondly, I don't think there should be a direct comparison to 'Osho', without at least prior context in the article. Would you expect someone reading about Prem Rawat for the first time on Wikipedia to know who Osho is, and why he is being compared with Rawat? 82.44.221.140 (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Esoteric? This is an encyclopedia, with articles such as Textual criticism (which I am currently working on to reach featured article status), as well as others such as Linnaean taxonomy that you may also call "esoteric" and hard to comprehend by the "general public". In Wikipedia articles, readers can use the wikilinks to find more information about related subject, in this case, Max Weber, Charismatic authority, and Osho. Having said that, I am sure that a better wording for the first sentence can be found to introduce readers to the subject. Any proposals? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that relevant links to references have been provided, but IMO it is still a question whether they are of practical use to a typical reader. Let's say someone looks up this article after having a vague recollection of a young 1970s 'Guru' and wonders whatever became of him. The lead will give a nice summary, but when they get to this section, many will never have heard of the term 'Weberian', and 'turn off' at this point. Other will click on the link and then behold an entire detailed article which they must then comprehend to gain context of the paragraph in the Rawat article. Surely, it would be better if we wrote the article as 'self contained' biography, with optional links to further detail for those wishing to study the subject deeper. This is the case for most of this article, but this section is written in such a way that a reader has no choice but to understand terminology such as 'Weberian', in order to understand the section. Surely this section could be re-written to be self-explanatory, but with optional links to the academic material that do not have to be followed in order to get the 'jist' of this section? I will also await further opinions before discussing further 82.44.221.140 (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the leading sentence can be re-written for clarity and readability, so that it explanins what the section is about. I will try and re-write that sentence, or maybe others would like to stab at it? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

See User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal2#Proposal 3. Would the leading sentence I added address your concern? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes - that's great. The leading sentence gives enough context to enable the reader to understand the section without having to research Weber. Thanks!. If I was to be picky I would suggest re-arranging the order of sentences so that you are first referring to the subject (Rawat) then adding the bit explaining Weber for context.82.44.221.140 (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I used Proposal #4's leading sentence to start the paragraph, continuing with the rest: User:Steve_Crossin/Mediation/Prem_Rawat/Proposal2 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The sentences "...describes Rawat's role as a Master as emerging from both theological and experiential aspects, and as not being the sole focus or generator of charisma; she also observed that charisma did not prevent some devotees from discovering that they had learned the "experience of God" on their own, and to drift away, not in disillusionment but in fulfillment.[14] ...David G. Bromley describes the difficulty of a charismatic leader in proving to be above normal human failings such as not to suffer ill health or indulge in worldly pursuits. He presents Rawat's marriage as such a situation, which is then exploited by the media to discredit charismatic claimants in the eyes of the general public" frankly do not make much sense as written. They need a lot of work by someone who has English as a first language and who understands what the hell the original authors were trying to say. Is there such a person here? Rumiton (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Rumiton, that is what Bromley states, and we are attributing that opinion to him. That is all we do in WP articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Geaves 2006

As you might have remarked on your watchlists I've been trying to work with Geaves' material this morning, that is: Geaves, Ron. "Globalization, charisma, innovation, and tradition: An exploration of the transformations in the organisational vehicles for the transmission of the teachings of Prem Rawat (Maharaji)" in Journal of Alternative Spiritualities and New Age Studies - Volume 2, 2006, ISBN 978-1-4196-2696-5, pp. 44-62. Web copy at asanas.org.uk

Now, there's something I'm not very clear about how to place it. As it pertains to the charismatic leadership and routinization topics relevant to the "Proposal2" page, I'd appreciate any help offered:

(p. 56) This brings the paper to the issue of authority.

Weber’s ideal charismatic authority, was not only unpredictable and unstable, requiring routinisation in order to provide continuity, but was also centred in the personal qualities of the charismatic leader and demanding obedience. Charisma and tradition are seen as having an antagonistic relationship with each other. Prem Rawat could be defined as charismatic only in the latter sense. He does not demand obedience, in that no outer requirements or prohibitions are placed on those taught the techniques.

• I cannot help but see the following as placing some sort of a requirement: "Before I give you Knowledge, I will ask you for three promises. [...]"; including a prohibition: "The third promise I will ask for is not to reveal these techniques to anyone. [...]" [3]
• Then, Geaves also has been active to demonstrate the continuity of tradition that leads to what Rawat is today, e.g. Geaves, Ron (2002), "From Totapuri to Maharaji: Reflections on a Lineage (Parampara)", paper delivered to the 27th Spalding Symposium on Indian Religions, Regents Park College, Oxford, 22–24 March 2002.

Far from wanting to override the assertions of an established professor with OR, I'm just asking a question: how do we tackle this when writing an encyclopedia? Obviously, one of the possible answers to that question could be: "NOT", let's leave that fishy business aside. But wouldn't that be a bit of an unsatisfactory answer? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

We can introduce that material as needed, and I see no contradiction where you see one, or anything "fishy" as you assert. Asking for promise is not a prohibition, IMO. In fact, and as you probably know by now, there are those that chose not to abide by their earlier promise. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Also note the use of outer requirements or prohibitions, that in my understanding, refers to external changes such as changes in way of living, adopting certain external practices such as vegetarianism, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I remarked the "outer" specification, and that is one of the details I'd still be inclined to call fishy (sorry, maybe I should find another word), anyway: bureaucratic and traditional leadership (the other two leadership types in Weberian sociology) are about "outer" requirements and rules (e.g. "Die bureaukratische Herrschaft ist spezifisch rational im Sinn der Bindung an diskursiv analysierbare Regeln, die charismatische spezifisch irrational im Sinn der Regelfremdheit. [...]" - my bolding) [4]; nonetheless a charismatic leader can ask things from his followers too, according to Weber with only one central characteristic: the requirements induced by the charismatic leader are "new" ("Material aber gilt für alle genuin charismatische Herrschaft der Satz: »es steht geschrieben, – ich aber sage euch«; der genuine Prophet sowohl wie der genuine Kriegsfürst wie jeder genuine Führer überhaupt verkündet, schafft, fordert neue Gebote [...]" - Weber's emphasis). Weber does not indicate that requirements or prohibitions by a charismatic leader are characteristically "outer".

Geaves is messing things up. Sorry about that. I'd agree to quote him in Wikipedia as far as his RS status goes, but that's it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Francis, sharply spotted, it’s an inconsistency in Geaves’ writing I hadn’t noted previously. There is however a bigger problem and that is that the proposed text commences with a contextualisation within Weberian terms – but the Geaves quote comes from a paper in which Geaves challenges the applicability of Weberian analysis to the article subject. For clarity the text needs to specify that Geaves is disagreeing with those scholars who reference Weber with approval – which then raises the question - if Geaves is a lone voice is it appropriate to even use him ? Previously it had been agreed that Geaves would only be used for non controversial references. As Geaves is a subject to be mediated perhaps it would simply be best to omit him from all controversial contexts until there is consensus on his use in all the Rawat related articles ? --Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Re. "the Geaves quote comes from a paper in which Geaves challenges the applicability of Weberian analysis to the article subject" - I fail to see where Geaves would be doing that in that article. Please clarify.

Geaves is confused on how to apply the analysis, but that's different from challenging the validity of such analysis.

On a side note, note that your analysis here is also partly confused on how to apply the sociological analysis, in that you seem to attach too much importance to Rawat having a board seat or an executive function in his organisations in order to be classified as a charismatic leader... A charismatic leader would typically not need such bureaucratic entanglements to exert his or her leadership: such arguments miss the point.

Imho, Rawat is still, to a certain degree, a charismatic leader. Maybe less than he was before: routinization (and I see Geaves as someone heavily contributing to the routinization efforts) can not be upheld ad infinitum without ultimately leading to a more bureaucratic type of leadership. But that analysis of mine is of no relevance to the appreciation of Geaves, a professor, as a reliable source in Wikipedia. Maybe we could limit his use as a source to strictly "religion" topics, as that is his speciality, while, for instance, sociology clearly isn't. Even if he has such other topics on his resume, see 2nd paragraph of Ron Geaves. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Surely Geaves is arguing that Weber’s theory of charisma does not apply to Rawat, except in the very limited sense that (according to Geaves) Rawat is antagonistic to tradition:

Prem Rawat’s teachings make no reference to any traditional authority, neither person nor text. The shift in language, directly appealing to human understandings of their own existential dilemma, removed the earlier and more Indian- orientated style of a traditional Sant idiom that could be grounded in reference to previous sacred figures and texts, providing authenticity by comparison and asserting that the message conformed to the ‘real’ meaning of sacred text. This brings the paper to the issue of authority. Weber’s ideal charismatic authority, was not only unpredictable and unstable, requiring routinisation in order to provide continuity, but was also centred in the personal qualities of the charismatic leader and demanding obedience. Charisma and tradition are seen as having an antagonistic relationship with each other. Prem Rawat could be defined as charismatic only in the latter sense. He does not demand obedience, in that no outer requirements or prohibitions are placed on those taught the techniques. The simple axiom, “If you like it, practice it, if you don’t, try something else,” is applied on frequent occasions in his public discourses. Neither does Prem Rawat regard himself as an exemplary leader, a role often ascribed to religious founders. I don’t see how this does not stand in direct contradiction to what the other sources are saying.

In respect of my criticism of Geaves, it is quite possible that I’m confused about the application of Weberian theory – but I don’t think in that particular case that I am; however others have also questioned the implications of authoritarian versus charismatic leadership aspects of that article so some form of amendment would be desirable if only for the sake of clarity. I fully accept that Rawat is in Weberian terms (and in commonly understood usage) a charismatic leader. Regarding Geaves academic standing as relevant as a WP:reference, Geaves is not as such a ‘religious scholar’ in that WP redirects Religious Scholar to Theology, Geaves being neither a theologian nor a philosopher, but more closely a ‘sociologist of Religion’, – this is from a personal webpage published by Geaves some years ago. “ I do have a personal position. I am an 'experiential essentialist' in the line of Professor Ninian Smart, Professsor Geoffrey Parrinder and other eminent pioneers of my discipline. I am very proud and honoured to follow in their footsteps, especially after being awarded my Chair in Religious Studies this year. My ethics are simple - the study of religion is a critical valuation that is combined with a sensitive grasp of world views. There is nothing in the article that contradicts this position.” And from Ninian Smart “Religious Studies as a non-confessional, methodologically agnostic discipline takes its place in the secular academy, where it draw heavily on anthropology, sociology, psychology, history, archeology, and other disciplines. At bottom, it has a place in the public or state sector because, as an aspect of human experience, it is also the study of people--of what they believe, why they believe and act as they do, both individually and within society.” Geaves’ degree was in Humanities and his Phd clearly followed a ‘social sciences’ approach, so it is difficult to argue that sociology is not his ‘specialty’, albeit that he has specialised in the study of religion.

I think your identification of Geaves as “someone heavily contributing to the routinization efforts” is relevant to the question of using Geaves as source for the Rawat articles because it sets very clearly Geaves own role as an interested party in the Rawat history. The same area of problem would arise if Joseph Goebbels was to be quoted as if he were a disinterested source in a biography of Hitler. In any event your Proposal 4. avoids all the major problems and although I think the Pilarscyk quote was useful perhaps it is simply safer to go with what you have.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to pass opinions about scholars, why are we putting Geaves under a microscope while avoiding scrutinity of other scholars? This discussion is better had off-wiki. Here we attribute significant opinions to those that hold them, and nothing more. 16:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jossi (talk • contribs)

Please sign your comments. The answer to your question is that Geaves is a recognised area requiring mediation and therefore inevitably part of the ongoing discussion regarding the Prem Rawat articles see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20_Divine_Light_Mission#Issues_to_be_Mediated. If you believe other quoted sources require examination then you are free to place your arguments for that on the relevant talk page. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As a public critic of Geaves, I would argue that extending your critique to these pages is neither welcome, not useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no prohibtion on users participating in talk page discussions even when they have outside conflicts of interest. The legitimacy of sources is one of the main issues in the mediation, so it's an appropriate discussion for all of us. So long as we remember that Geaves is a living person we can discuss his scholarly work freely. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

@Jossi, please concentrate on the content of the contribution, not on who wrote it. WP:NPA 1.0

This is a talk page, there's no apriorism against any contributor depending on prior history, nor on what they do in public.

Further, remember you're a guest like we all are in Steve's user space on this page: if you're not sure whether something is appropriate or not, maybe consult Steve about it, but don't start generalizing before you did: whether something "is" welcome here or not doesn't look like the most favourable format to vent your personal opinion imho. (Just on this, yes, while it's my userspace, this is more a place to facilitate productive discussion, and not a place where I "govern" the discussion, per se.) Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 21:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Re. Nik's comment: further misses the point imho. In the Weberian approach both authority and leadership are acceptable and often used translations of his German term Herrschaft: in his sociological analysis there are three flavours of Herrschaft: (1) charismatic; (2) bureaucratic; (3) traditional (sorry for the repeats, this is not the first time this is explained on this page). In that context "[...] authoritarian versus charismatic leadership [...]" is void of meaning: "authoritarian leadership" is a synonym to "authoritarian authority" which is a tautological tautology. "Authoritarian" does not correspond to any of the three basic Weberian categories of authority. Note that I really had to force myself to continue reading after your first sentence, making a first mistake: "Weber’s theory of charisma" is a phantom - it does not exist. Weber's theory is on authority, he does not treat aspects of charisma outside its relation to authority, in other words: whether a monastic recluse has charisma is of no relevance to a sociological analysis, while there's no leadership or authority in a social sense involved.

Re. use of Geaves as a source: I was kind of afraid that if we cut off all non-religion disciplines from his approach not much would be left (that is: if we take the Smart quote as a reference). Yeah, Geaves sounds kind of hollow. He doesn't even get the name of one of Rawat's organisations right ("history" is one of the other disciplines involved in Geaves' approach to religion: one of the first expectations one might have regarding a historian, is that he would get his terminology right). But as said, again: this has little or no influence on the use of Geaves as a source in Wikipedia. He's a professor, and as long as he's in his field of expertise, and is published on it by a reliable publisher, that's about as good as it gets reliability-wise for sources in Wikipedia context. But for me, that's one of the aspects that makes Rawat completely and utterly boring, repeating my first intuition on this subject, before I had even heard about Geaves. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

For clarification. I don't disagree with Francis' analysis of Weber at all, my comment related specifically to critics of my criticism of Geaves who were arguing from an non Weberian perspective - I'm not suggesting that should inform this article. However, while I support the construction of Proposal 4, I do think it could be enhanced (given that Geaves' takes the discussion away from a purely Weberian context) by the inclusion of Pilarzyk or some alternate source providing a non Weberian perspective.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

More DuPertuis

I've read through her work a couple of times now, and I think I'd like to take a crack at a summary, but just focus on her for the moment. Should I do that here, or should I take up a prop slot on the "User Page"? Mael-Num (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

An approach that we've discussed avoiding is using standalone summaries of scholars. Some prior versions of the bio and the criticism article had paragraphs each devoted to attempts at summarizing sometimes very long works, but which often were little more than quotations or single points being made out of context. The other approach is topical: to cover topics and include there what all the significant scholars and other sources say about those topics. Now some academic papers have very narrow subjects, and so their entire scope fits within a topic. I expect that's the case with the DuPertuis paper. Even so, I suggest framing the matter as "here's what DuPertuis has written about Prem Rawat's charismatic leadership", rather than "here are DuPertuis's views on Prem Rawat". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Time to make this edit

Unless there are objections substantiated with solid arguments, or any alternative proposals, it is time to make this edit per proposal #3. It is about time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a chapter/paragraph number for footnote 18. I'm not even sure that formulation of Weber's definition is in that book. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Added "as cited in" + ref and page number. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• What's the rush? I simply do not have the time to work on more than one proposal at a time right now, we have *16* to deal with for proposal 1 already. When I am finished with proposal 1, I'll start looking at proposal 2. There is no hurry, we don't have a deadline, so it's not "about time". -- Maelefique ^(talk) 00:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Mael-Num indicated above that he wanted to work on the DuPertuis material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• There is no real rush, however, we should try and make progress as, well, quickly as possible. We are all keen (including myself), to make progress, and progress has recently been made. I think the key here is about getting the balance right, not too quick, not too slow. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 01:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• "No rush" is applicable when something is rushed. This is not the case with this proposal, which as been made 10 days ago. If an editor wants to study DuPertuis, Geaves, or any other scholar, he/she is free to do so without impinging progress. Unless there are any proposals or objections substantiated by solid arguments, this edit needs to be made. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• "This edit needs to be made"... Why? And why right this second? Wasn't it you that was just asking us to slow down on proposal 1?(yes it was), now you want us to speed up on proposal 2? Again, why? What is the problem with working with them in order? Is there some kind of timeline I need to know about? Proposal 1 has been on the table longer than 10 days, we haven't inserted that edit yet. You wanting this edit all of a sudden does not constitute consensus. If you think you have consensus, a straw poll would help confirm that, and then we can move forward. I haven't seen anything like consensus on this proposal yet, and it feels a little bit like you trying to make an end-run around the process while the rest of the involved editors are focused on proposal 1. I'm not saying it is (that might be considered lacking good faith), but it does look a little bit like that. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I will only respond to substantive arguments about content. The process has already been established, and silence, the lack of substantiated arguments, or lack of proposals, is a sign of consensus. If you have something to offer on the content, please do so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• To clarify, what has happened with Proposal 3 and 4? Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 01:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Steve, I think we're talking about Proposal 2, proposal 3 (capital P, little p). -- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Proposal 3 fails to note that DuPertius is a former student, and the paragraph seems overly concerned with the definition of a "charismatic leader", and less about whether it applies to Rawat or not, and most importantly, why it's relevant. Further, the reference to Hunt suddenly comes out of nowhere, who is he? (Obviously *I* know, but why would the reader unless he's already been mentioned). So I guess, yes, there are solidly substantiated arguments against this edit as it stands. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • (ec) (a) "former student"? Source?; (b) The paragraph is an extension of what is in the article already, see User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal2#Proposal 0; (c) The proposal it is all meticulously sourced to material in scholarly sources related to Rawat and Charismatic leadership; and (d) the proposal has been online for 10 days, plenty of time for editors to comment, debate, and make alternative proposals. So, as said above, unless there are objections raised substantiated by solid arguments, or counter proposals offered, there is no reason not to do this edit. That is the reason we have this proposal pages, and that is the process we all agreed to. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Per Downton, added info about DuPertuis. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I didn't agree to edit this article on your schedule, and you didn't answer my questions about why it needs to be done so urgently. I still don't see consensus here, that's what I agreed to work towards. Add that to the fact that a 30 second glance at the paragraph revealed problems with it, clearly indicates that this needs more review. Additionally, Mael-Num (not me, don't get confused), has already stated he has alterations he would like to make as well. CLEARLY, we're not done with this proposal. No hurry, let's get it right. Steve, are you happy we have a consensus here? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 03:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry I haven't been around today to make the edit I promised. I've been a bit under the weather, and mostly resting. I'll put together an alterternate wording proposal ASAP tomorrow, but I completely understand if you guys would prefer to move forward sooner. Mael-Num (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • No problems. Look forward to your ideas on how to improve this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I put my take on DuPertuis up at Prop 2.15. I dropped the part about members taking the "Do-It-Yourself" approach to enlightenment, because even though her conclusions are very interesting, it says more about the DLM movement of the 70's than it does about Rawat himself. For what it's worth, I did a little rework of that section as well, and I'd like to see her cited somewhere in the DLM article, because like I said, I think it is interesting stuff:

As rival gurus appeared and societal criticism increased, DLM withdrew into introversionism. Over several years, followers increased in competence in meditation and confidence in its results. For many, this led to deeper belief in Maharaj Ji as Satguru, while others learned to "experience God" on their own and drift away, not in disillusionment but in fulfillment.

Maybe combining some of that back into the piece and omitting some of Prop 15 as it is right now would be more to peoples' tastes, or even omitting this entirely and just keeping what we have already. I'm completely open to all suggestions. Mael-Num (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have moved your proposal to #6, to keep the sequence, and incorporated your text into Proposal#3. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Also note that per DuPertuis, the text you want removed refers to the specifics of Rawat's charisma and thus appropriate for this section. I have kept that text. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel that it is about Rawat's charisma, but somewhat tangentially, because it describes how it impacted the movement (i.e. the DLM). I removed it primarily due to space considerations, and given that the rest of it speaks more directly of Rawat and is coherant as a section all its own, it seemed natural to remove it. If space isn't a problem, leave it in, or mix n' match. Whatever you guys think works best. Mael-Num (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Mael-Num. I think that this section is becoming one of the most neutral and informative in the article. Hope we can do the edit soon. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh...er...I should probably have read what version went back in before I wrote that. This:

She also observed that Rawat's charisma did not prevent some devotees from discovering that they had learned the "experience of God" on their own, and to drift away, not in disillusionment but in fulfillment

Isn't exactly what she's saying, at least I don't think so. While I agree that, logically, one can conclude that Rawat's charisma didn't impede his followers from leaving, I'm not sure that's as accurate a summary as possible. A closer version of what she was saying would be that, as followers increased their abilities in meditation, some felt increasingly assured of Rawat's position of Master, while others did not and drifted away, none-the-less spiritually fulfilled by their personal revelations. I'm not sure if it would be considered synthesis of ideas or simply original research, or perhaps neither and I'm just of the wrong opinion here, but I'm not 100% comfortable with putting it quite that way. Mael-Num (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm... I think it is a good summary of her conclusion. In it she speaks of "Continued adherence to this religion depended on acceptance of this linkage of experiences (i.e. "imputation of charisma on three interrelated levels") as well as continued meditational efforts to achieve them" as it relates to the charisma of the leader. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

All the same, maybe wording to this effect?

DuPertuis further observed that practice in meditation and satsang led many followers to deeper belief in Rawat, while others learned to "experience God" on their own and drifted away not in disillusionment but in fulfillment."

It's a subtle difference, but she seems (to me) not to be saying that people "found enlightenment" in spite of Rawat's charisma, but rather as a result of the exploration of that charismatic authority. Maybe I'm just picking nits, but in the back of my mind I imagine DuPertuis reading our summary and saying, "You guys got it wrong." A couple of other things:

• DuPertuis talks a bit about popular culture's influence on Rawat's message and followers (including this "drifting"), but due to space constraints and questionable relevance it's been omitted
• DuPertuis talks about most of this in the context of a religion, but I tried to avoid the "R" word because it was my understanding that Rawat considers his teachings to be philosophical in nature at this time
• Wasn't she one of Rawat's followers? I might have missed it, but I didn't see that mentioned in "How People Recognize Charisma". It might be important, it might not. She is rather...glowing in her take on all this, though.

Not sure if what I wrote is good or bad or right or wrong with respect to that information, but I figured it was best to mention it. Mael-Num (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a good summary, Mael, missing only the connection to charisma that she makes in her paper. Can you try to incorporate it tp your summary. And yes, she was a follower when she wrote that paper (see the footnote). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Who is Thomas/Tom Pilarzyk?

I am trying to find who is this person. All I can find is one book about Yoga under his name[5], no bio or curriculum vitae. Does anybody what are this person's credentials? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• (ec) More problems with proposal 3? Good thing we didn't rush to add this edit before it had been properly scrutinized. I look forward to examining it further tomorrow. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 03:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No problems. Just an addition. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I found this:

Tom Pilarzyk is a certified Kripalu yoga instructor at Seven Stones Center for Wellness and at Yama Yoga Studio in the Third Ward.[6]

Will add qualifications to the proposal, as per other authors. He is a yoga instructor of the Kripalu branch. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure it's the same person? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems more liekly that he's the Thomas Pilzaryk who's "Chairperson of the Sociology Department at Marymount College of Kansas". [7] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

He's certainy the same Thomas Pilzaryk of the Urban Social Institutions Program at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[8] There was also a Thomas Pilarzyk in the Sociology department of Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.[9] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's the paper itself, which clearly says that he's at Marymount.[10] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I checked and this is the deal. He has/had an administrative role in a Milwaukee college. He is a yoga teacher. And he is also described as a social scientist, with a Phd. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• 1978 - Thomas Pilarzyk Chairperson of the Sociology Department at Mary-Mount College of Kansas.

• 2003 and forward: Thomas Pilarzyk Director, Enrollment Services Milwaukee Area Technical College [11]

• 2007 Tom Pilarzyk is a social scientist, college administrator and certified Kripalu yoga teacher at Seven Stones Center for Wellness in Milwaukee. He is a regular contributor to Milwaukee Yoga Magazine and city yoga magazines elsewhere. He has also published academic articles on Hinduism in America. [12]

  2007? appears it was published in July - August 2005, with a web page copyright of 2006? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Will add this info in a summary format. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Is a job that he holds 30 years after writing the paper really significant? Are we checking the current employment status of the other authors? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • (ec) Too extended: we quote Pilarzyk on Rawat from a 1978 paper, we don't usually add qualifications for sources regarding what happened to them in later life. We don't add "doctor in Medicine" for Schnabel when quoting from a book he wrote just before becoming a doctor in medicine; we don't add "one of the most influential people of the Netherlands" for Schnabel, although that's what he became in the early 21st century. We quote Schnabel on a 1982 book, so what he was at the time is more than sufficient for a qualification. All this was considered self-evident some time ago, confirmed by Jossi. We don't even know Pilarzyk had anything to do with yoga in 1978. The intro to Pilzaryk's 1978 paper gives a short qualification for this person applicable at the time when writing the article. Any more bio info on this person should go in a bio article on this person (if there's enough notability for such subject), but is redundant in a Rawat bio when quoting Pilarzyk as a source. Note that we don't give any qualifications on some of the sources most frequently used in the article (Melton: ? ; Cagan : ? ; NYT: ?). For those lesser known a single qualifier (social scientist; sociologist; professor of religion;... or whatever most applicable) should suffise: the article should focus on Rawat, not the sources, and even for info on Rawat, because of length of the text we will be pruning the article, and pruning again. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Pilarzyk does not have an article in Wikipedia, such as we have for Hunt, Geaves, Melton, Hadden, Downton, and many others. So I see no problem in providing some context about who this person is. One thing we could do is to make the material available in the footnote, and apply same standard to other lesser known authors such as DuPertuis. I will do that on my proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Moved biographical info of these lesser known authors, to the footnotes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not favouring this. The footnote apparatus should be trimmed, not extended. This isn't a bio article, except on Rawat. Complaints on the footnotes being overloaded have been voiced (by others than me, although I did more than my share in the trimming), and then you more than doubled the bios when moving them to footnotes... this "extended short bio" development (whether in the body or the footnotes) is imho really not the way to go. For every bit of info on Rawat we require multiple solid sources, and then we start inserting info on other living people gathered from websites that wouldn't pass WP:RSN if they'd be the sole publisher on an information bit regarding Rawat. And again, certainly no bio information beyond the point where they published the most recent article we cite on these authors. This was agreed upon before, I hope I don't have to go look for the diffs where and when you promoted this approach.
      I'm not saying this isn't interesting, but it doesn't belong. And Jossi, imho doesn't do justice to your good work on this proposal2 page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • The references/notes for the proposal, seem to be appropriate for the text. I do not see any issues with it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm a little curious as well, why is yoga important to his status as a scholar? I work out, but I don't put that on my résumé. Mael-Num (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• It appears to be a second career, or a retirement activity, and doesn't wouldn't be relevant to his authority as a scholar. If Dupertuis later took up painting, for example, we wouldn't addd "painter" to her description. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Not really. He wrote a few papers on the 70's and that is all his academic work. Now he works in an administrative role, and in the weekends he works as a yoga teacher. Clearly not a notable scholar as others that we have used in these articles. The question for me is: is this important information for our readers, yes or no. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Compared to DuPertuis, Pilarzyk sems equally obscure. I don't think that overall notability is an issue. Pilarzyk's paper has been cited widely. and that's the important aspect. A weekend job 30 years later doesn't have anything to do with his paper, or with Prem Rawat. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I am asking a simple question. Is this important information (both about Dupertuis and Pilarzyk) for our readers, given that these authors do not have Wikipedia articles about them, yes, or no? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the footnoted text for both these authors:

• DuPertuis, Chair of Sociology at the University of Guam and follower who assisted James V. Downton with his book about the Divine Light Mission
• Pilarzyk is a social scientist, college administrator and certified Kripalu yoga teacher at Seven Stones Center for Wellness in Milwaukee. He is a regular contributor to Milwaukee Yoga Magazine and city yoga magazines elsewhere. He has also published academic articles on Hinduism in America.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • No to Pilarzyk, yes to Dupertuis, her information is still directly related to this article, although "and follower" seems a little vague to me.. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 05:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• The issue surely is the quality,scope and relevance of Pilarzyk's analysis; looking only for high profile authors for a subject like Rawat/DLM is going to limit the sources to an unhelpful degree. Pilarzyk offers a persective not offered by other writers and his work is academically valid.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• I think this is an unhelpful direction. No one is contesting that hese are worthwhile scholars. If we really feel the need to fully identify Pilarzyk then his position as chair of the sociology dept. should be included. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• ...and take out the yoga references from his bio. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 14:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• OK. I see that there is this sudden defense of Pilarzik as he was the best thing since slice bread. I will remove all descriptions of credentials from Pilrzyk and DuPertuis and let the readers wonder go the hell these two people are. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• I don't think that's necesary either. It's sufficient to identify them both as "sociologists" at a minimum. DuPertuis' status as a follower should also be mentioned. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • OK ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • If push came to shove, I'd take sliced bread over Pilarzyk. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 03:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 6

• Attempt to combine the acuracy of Prop.4 with the detail of other Propos.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Proposal 4 and 6 contain original research: In Rawat's case, the factor "exemplary character" is seen as irrelevant: That is WP:SYN.
• Pilarzyk, who did not refer to Weber directly, more WP:OR
• The sentence that starts with the development of the DLM in America had, is not related to the subject of this section
• Geaves states that "Rawat is not a renunciate" and "he has gone to great lengths to assert his humanity and deconstruct the hagiography that has developed around his life." Added to proposal #13

I do not see this proposal as being any superior to Proposal #3 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Prop. 6 edited per concerns of WP:SYN and WP:OR--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The contention that The sentence that starts with the development of the DLM in America had, is not related to the subject of this section is false, the sentence relates directly to the following sentence which identifies Weber, and is substantiated by the associated footnote.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You have listed reference 28, and that does not contain any footnotes. Also, you have not responded to the WP:OR]] violations pointed out above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This is definitely the most boring bunch of pseudo-intellectual cr*p I have ever read. The sentence Dupertuis, working from the statement that “in Weber's formulations, charisma clearly appears in the eyes of the beholders” concluded that Rawat's role as a Master as emerged from both theological and experiential aspects, and was not the sole focus or generator of charisma does not even make sense, no matter how many times you read it. Does this matter? Does anyone care? Rumiton (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the stray 'as', it's now removed. As the sources for Rawat/DLM/Elan Vital are predominantly sociologists, the nature of any encyclopaedia article on these subjects inevitably needs to address the sociological perspectives in which the sources are couched. That's intellectual not pseudo-intellectual or crap; perhaps if you are not happy with what is proposed you could furnish an alternative proposal which addresses the sources as they are not how you would wish them to be ?--Nik Wright2 (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Its removal isn't all that helpful. I would wish them to be comprehensible and say something worthwhile, that's all. I have worked many years as a translator, and the job there is to take something that does not make sense (in the target language) and make it understandable to the reader. It is a type of paraphrasing. Attempting to paraphrase this stuff reveals it for what it is, mere verbal gameplaying. Such puffery is not only devoid of meaning but actively hostile to it. Rumiton (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This proposal, as it stands, adds nothing to the hard work done for 10 days in proposal#3, and contains several WP:OR violations. Not usable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And this edit, with an edit summary of Edited per OR concerns, is ludicrous. It does not respond to the violations argued in this thread. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Propose to move ahead with Proposal #3

Proposal #3 has been edited with the input of many editors actively contributing. At this stage I see no new proposals that are devoid of problems or that challenge the sources or the text used in Proposal #3. I propose to move forward and make the edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I object to referring to scholars simply as "DuPertuis" and "Pilarzyk". Please change the first mentions to something like "Lucy DuPeruis, sociologist" and "Thomas Pilarzyk, sociologist", so that readers will know who we're discussing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

?? It is there. Pilarzyk is described as a social scientist, per our sources, and DuPertuis as a sociologist and follower. Please re-read the text of the proposal. It is #3. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

My mistake - I'm not sure what I was looking at. Why not describe Pilarzyk as a "sociologist"? He was chairman of a sociology department. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The sources we found say "social scientist". He has a Ph.D. but I am not sure on what. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the sources called him "Chairperson of the Sociology Department at Marymount College of Kansas." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But what we do not know is if he was a sociologist or not. I have been unable to find info about his studies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(What is the problem with social scientist? He could have been an Indologist, or an Anthropologist, for example. I am missing something? ) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

According to your link, "social science" includes: Anthropology, Economics, Education, Geography, History, Law, Linguistics, Political science, Psychology, Social Work, and Sociology. I've never heard of a college that lumped sociology and history into one department. Clearly the guy is a sociologist. OTOH, if you want to be fair, we can call of these schoalrs "social scientists", since that catchall term would include them all. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Clearly the guy is a sociologist. Are you sure? I am not, and that is why I hesitate, prefering to use what the sources asy. It is not a big deal, or is it? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. [13] He undertook graduate work in sociology - Changed to "sociologist". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Any other comments on Proposal #3? If there aren't any, we should make this edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I am extremely unimpressed by this sort of material, but then I am unimpressed by sociology. This is not a POV issue, I just think that particular branch of learning disappeared up its own fundamental orifice some decades ago and is only now starting to realise it. All right, maybe it is a POV issue. Put it in. The discerning eye will recognise the gobbledegook and jump over it. Rumiton (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Rumiton: Regardless of your disinterest in Sociology, this material is well sourced and relevant for this article. I take your comment as being "I don't like it, but I do not object". Would that be a correct assessment of your comment?

Yes. But "disinterest" is not quite right. Contempt is closer. "Don't like it" is spot on. Rumiton (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• The last phrase, ", and that Rawat could only be defined as charismatic in the sense of charisma having an antagonistic relationship with tradition" is Geaves 2006, not Hunt 2003 (at least, not what is quoted from Hunt here: Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars#Hunt).
• The bolded part "[Stephen J. Hunt describes Rawat's charisma] in a similar manner [as Geaves]," appears OR-ish: Geaves discusses the leadership/authority aspect of Rawat's charisma, Hunt appears to use the term charisma without implying its sociological dimension (it's not clear whether he does or not, but implying he does would be OR). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Will fix these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Just another small thought: maybe put Hunt before Geaves, then the "similar description" for the first part of what is attributed to Geaves 2006 wouldn't even be wrong. And "2003" comes before "2006" (although there's no obligation to follow a chronological order of course). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There's still some footnote work, e.g. the Geaves 2006 ref currently in the Rawat article gives the link to the PDF version of Geaves' article at the publisher's website, etc. But that's maybe easier to adjust after transferral to the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Link to pdf added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Proposal 7

Identical to prop 3, apart from some minor things I happened to think of:

• linking first occurence of "routinized" - this was suggested long ago (I mean before the prop2 page was started);
• adding refs to first sentence.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• OK, all you people who feel this stuff adds something worthwhile to the article. David G. Bromley describes the difficulty of a charismatic leader in proving to be above normal human failings such as not to suffer ill health or indulge in worldly pursuits. What does this mean? Is he saying that Prem Rawat ever claimed to "not suffer ill health or indulge in worldly pursuits"? I think auxilliary sources would be needed if that was the case. Or is he implying that any charismatic leader worth his salt would make that claim, then have difficulty proving it? He doesn't clearly say which he meant, which makes it just waffle, weasel words. Like most of sociology. IMO. Rumiton (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • @Rumiton: This is Bromley explaining the perception/expectations of others toward charismatic leaders. I will revise the sources yo make sure I did not mess it up. @Francis: Changes OK with me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Time

I think it is time to make this edit. Steve? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'll glance over it, and have a look. Steve Crossin (contact) 03:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed, it seems there is consensus for this edit, and it should be done. However, before doing so, another issue needs addressing. Some edits, as they stand, in the Prem Rawat article, have been objected to, and from the feedback I have received, it seems clear the edits have been disputed, and that consensus seems clear they should be undone. I have asked around, and due to the nature of this dispute, no one wants to undo the edit, therefore, I will have to do it myself. Understand that I am not questioning the edits myself, and that as a mediator, I have no opinion on the subject of the mediation, indeed, I knew nothing of Prem Rawat before I took this case, but in my judgment, it seems clear there are strong objections to a few edits, and as it is causing the dispute some issues, I see no alternative than to undo the edits personally. It's a complex change, but one I'll need to do before adding new text in. I'll be restoring to this edit, and reinserting the text I inserted from this proposal intermediate edits will have to be redone, I'm afraid. If there's a better way to do this, please let me know, and if there are objections, please let me know too, but it seems clear here. Steve Crossin (contact) 03:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, no: this is a talk page discussing proposal2, not a place to discuss unrelated reverts that have no consensus. If everyone agrees to User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal2#Proposal 7 it can be operated, but take the discussions on the other changes elsewhere (such discussions have already been taking place in several places including a WP:ANI discussion where none of the uninvolved commentators advised such revert). Even bringing an RfC here (what is the least that should be done if you insist on discussing these other changes here) would be WP:FORUMSHOP. I don't agree to these other reverts, for reasons I have given elsewhere. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Francis, with respect, I brought it here as another major edit is about to be made. What do you propose as a solution here? Steve Crossin (contact) 05:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Re. User:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat/Proposal2#Proposal 7: implement it at Prem Rawat;
  • Re. other changes: what I wrote at User talk:Steve Crossin/Prem Rawat#Jossi should remove all his unjustified abrasive comments: I see no compelling reason to discuss that here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Fair enough. Proposal will be implemented, as for reverting to previous versions, and considering this, I am saddened that I've been put between a rock and a hard place, this case is hard enough as it is, and things like this aren't making it any easier. For now, let's just work on this proposal system, and we can re-visit these other concerns later, or perhaps, they will be resolved through a proposal on that section. But I must say, I'm saddened that I've been put into such a tricky position, one where I have to choose between bad options. But hey, I guess it comes with the job. Steve Crossin (contact) 06:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I more than respect you for your efforts. Yes, this could be easier. It's not my choice though to make it that difficult. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• No, I just think it's all of the current issues compiled. Steve Crossin (contact) 06:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• I'm happy to revert to this edit as you propose.Momento (talk) 04:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Urgent question. Where exactly in Prem Rawat does this proposal go? Just a link to the section will be fine. Steve Crossin (contact) 06:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It replaces this section: Prem Rawat#Authority --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Alright, thanks. Steve Crossin (contact) 06:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Rocks and hard places is, as you say, the name of the game. Some of my own brilliant edits will have to be redone, but no biggie. Rumiton (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC) As a German philosopher said, Nicht ärgern, nur wundern. Translate it, somebody, I have tried and can't. Rumiton (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

('Don't be angry, just be amazed') ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.