Wikipedia:WikiProject Prem Rawat/Current article issues

Guidelines: Current Article Issue Discussion

This page is a subpage of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Prem Rawat. Plese read that page before posting here. You may bring specific dispute issues on articles, categories or templates here. Note other help on reliable sources, point of views, biographies etc. might be found at an appropriate notice board. (See Noticeboard list.) Our discussions are moderated and incivility and other problematic postings will be deleted. Moderators also will move postings about problems with, or suggestions for, the project in general to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Prem Rawat talk page. They will archive resolved or dated issues.

Category and template names

Resolved

Category:Prem Rawat and Template:Prem Rawat include Hans Ji Maharaj and Satpal Maharaj, both of whom are notable on their own. Satpal and Prem are rivals, and Satpal may even have a larger movement and great notability due to his political career. Therefore I suggest renaming the category and template. There are two broad possibilities: naming them for the family (Rawat) or naming them for the institution (Divine Light Mission). "Rawat" is problematic because it's a fairly common name, but I've seen the movement called "Rawatism", so that's another choice. "Divine Light Mission" is problematic because it is no longer called that. A third option would be to call them "Guru Maharaj Ji" as I believe all three men have used that title. Other suggestions or thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  19:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: List of Prem Rawat-related topics should also be handled at the same time.   Will Beback  talk  19:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Where did you find "Rawatism"? In my experience, that is highly specific and loaded "ex-premie"-lingo, only used in in-group communication on downright anti-Rawat territory. I strongly object to using the term on WP.--Rainer P. (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall where I've seen it, but that was just a suggestion. What do you prefer? Another option I didn't list before would be to use the father's name as the category, but that might be a bit obscure.   Will Beback  talk  21:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not keep Prem Rawat-related topics? Regardless of their own notability, the energy for editing the Hans and Satpal articles stems obviously mainly from a desire to display a biography of Prem Rawat. Who would object?--Rainer P. (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the energies of the editors should be the predominat organizing scheme. An alternative would be to split it into two categories, leaving to the "Prem Rawat" category those topics that are exclusively related to him, and moving the others to a more general category (like "Divine Light Mission").   Will Beback  talk  22:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. "Guru Maharaj Ji" seems unwieldy, because in India there may be more Guru Maharaj Jis than Rawats. "Divine Light Mission" has some notability internationally, even if it no longer exists. But then so does the Spanish Inquisition. At large it appears most sensible to me to split "Prem Rawat"/"Divine Light Mission". If in India a desire exists to be more elaborate on Satpal, it could be handeled on Indian WP (is there a thing like that?). I think there are many movements like Satpal's in India, we can't cover them all extensively. Thus my remark about energies.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no Indian WP. Every language version of Wikipedia (such as English or Hindi) is an internatinal encyclopedia. FWIW, more people speak English in India than in the UK, Canada, and Australia combined.   Will Beback  talk  05:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I would be more of the mind to Keep the current Prem Rawat naming system and organizational structure used at present. If subtopics get big enough, they could always merit their own formats at a later point in time. For now, this works very well. Cirt (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Withdraw proposal: After raising this issue and trying to find a better scheme to overcome the inherent bias, I don't think that a simple renaming would work well. A solution may appear in the future, but otherwise I'm content to leave things as they are.   Will Beback  talk  17:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a better name as no reliable sources have, to my knowledge, grouped the three gurus together, but if it is accepted that Prem Rawat ceased to be notable in the 80s or 90s, then we would have the strange situation of a notable guru and politician in a group named after a no longer notable guru! --John Brauns (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"Rawat family"? --JN466 18:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Cirt that we should be pragmatic and keep the current naming convention for the moment, simply because it will avoid us spending our engery on debating the neutrality of naming conventions and let us get on with the practical work. BTW, I am on vacation and won't be around here much until end of August, but I don't know how to put up one of those 'wikibreak' tags on my user page.Savlonn (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Source assessment framework

Process

• Top Level Assessment: Agree that a source meets in principle, WP:RS

• Mid Level Assessment:

1. Categorise as to whether the source is Academic, Journalistic or Self Published(by the subject)
2. Categorise on the basis of relevance – (a)Project Wide –source is relevant to all or most articles (b)source is relevant to an Individual article only.
3. Categorise on the basis of Date applicability (a source can’t apply to article content that concerns events that occur after the source publishing date)

• Base Level Assessment:

1. Categorise Academic sources on the basis of (a) Is the specific material to be referenced, relevant to the author's area of expertise (b) Is the specific material to be referenced, incidental to author's area of expertise ( a professor of Mathematics doesn't become an expert on ornithology just because in a paper on Number Theory he comments on the flocking behaviour of birds!)
2. Categorise Journalistic sources on the basis of (a) Is the specific material to be referenced primarily a factual report, investigation etc (b) Is the specific material to be referenced primarily opinion, commentary etc.(use may well be justified but requires different structural presentation than a simple factual report).

Examples

• Example (1)

Reference = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat#cite_note-120

Source = http://www.acontecendoaqui.com.br/index.asp?dep=2&pg=4721

Assessment

Top Level = Publication is a Press Release distribution agency. WP:RS could be met in principle only on the basis of Self Publication.
Top Level Rating= 1 (range: 0,1,2,3)

Mid Level = (1) Self Published by Festival Mundial da Paz (?) As the source is self published it can only be relevant to an article about Festival Mundial da Paz or the related Unipaz organisation – it therefore has no relevance to the Project or to any of its constituent articles.
Mid Level Rating= 0 (range: 0,1,2,3)

Base Level = N/A
Base Level Rating= 0 (range: 0,1,2,3)

Counter-Indications = Self-published source concerned solely with positive promotion of subject, bias is inescapable. Source is not in english, translation issues may be relevant (in actuality, the press release reads that Prem Rawat is confirmed as "will be attending", *not* that he did, in fact, attend).
Counter-Indication Rating= -3 (range: -3,-2,-1, 0)

Action = remove from current use and replace with alternate reference or amend text.
Ratings Score: -2 (out of a possible 9). Source does not achieve minimum acceptable level of 5 (6?, 4?) out of 9. Source should be rejected and replaced with alternate source, otherwise the statement referenced should be removed.

• Example (2)

Reference = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat#cite_note-1

Source = Downton, James V. (1979). Sacred journeys: the conversion of young Americans to Division Light Mission. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231041985 9780231041980.

Assessment

Top Level = Meets all requirements for scholarly WP:RS
Top Level Rating= 3 (range: 0,1,2,3)

Mid Level = Academic Publication, Relevance is Project Wide, Date Range prior to 1979
Mid Level Rating= 3 (range: 0,1,2,3)

Base Level = The reference concerns content relevant to the author’s area of expertise
Base Level Rating= 3 (range: 0,1,2,3)

Counter-Indications = None noted.
Counter-Indication Rating= 0 (range: -3,-2,-1, 0)

Action = Current use is appropriate, other articles in the project may benefit from inclusion of this cite.
Ratings Score: 9 (out of a possible 9). Source achieves minimum acceptable level of 5 (6? 4?) out of 9. Source should be accepted for project-wide relevance for pre-1979 issues.

• Example (3)

Reference = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat#cite_note-9

Source = Rocky Mountain News, Wednesday, October 19, 1977, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A

Assessment

Top Level = Meets all requirements for journalistic WP:RS
Top Level Rating= 3 (range: 0,1,2,3)

Mid Level = Journalistic Publication, Relevance is article specific (Prem Rawat BLP) , Date Range single event 1977.
Mid Level Rating= 2 (range: 0,1,2,3)

Base Level = Factual report, (requires no moderating text noting opinion etc.)
Base Level Rating= 3 (range: 0,1,2,3)

Counter-Indications = Publication has no expertise on this subject, despite the article being purely factual in nature.
Counter-Indication Rating= -1 (range: -3,-2,-1, 0)

Action = None, current use is appropriate and has no relevance to other articles.
Ratings Score: 7 (out of a possible 9). Source achieves minimum acceptable level of 5 (6? 4?) out of 9. Source should be accepted as a source regarding Prem Rawat's US citizenship status.

Discussion

Once set up as a process this seems to work pretty well, in fact it took far longer to write this up than it did to do the assessments - perhaps a template might be useful ? I've tweeked the order of the Mid Level assessments to give a more logical flow. This approach will not impact much on any RS arguments, but it will help in sorting out what is or is not relevant to use in any given article/section. Of course there are alternative approaches and what I'm suggesting can be amended but I do think we need some kind of specified process.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that I actually see this, I can see its value. I assume that we'd create a page to store these assessments. It could serve as a handy guide to previous judgments. While previous consensus doesn't bind future editors, this could help reduce the problem of repeating the same arguments repeatedly, and would tend to make the articles more stable. I assume we'd start with assessing the disputed sources, and review the rest as the need arises. While I might wish for it to be simpler, the three "levels" seem to desribe necesary elements.   Will Beback  talk  09:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I see the value of this, and I like the breakdown of each source to find it's relevance. How is the "Action" determined? How do we deal with the nearly's, almost's, and kinda's? A template might be quite helpful yes, but also, possibly a numeric value assigned to each section might help? Total up the values, unless it's a direct fail (a 0 in any section might be an automatic fail), a 6 out of 9 gets us a source we can use? (3 points per section kind of thing?) Keep in mind, all this is pre-coffee for me, so if this strikes anyone as mental, I'm ok with that too. Oh, another thought, possibly a section entitled "Counter-Influences" that could add a negative value to the total. I should stop now before I just reduce the whole process to something algebraic If we get this right, it could give us a "drop it in, run it through the grinder, and see if we come out with hamburger" methodology that should be able to be applied very widely across WP. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 15:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about a scoring system - my thoughts were that based on a common system of assessment we would collate our individual assessments, and then work through any differences. The determination of "Action" would anyway have to be consensus driven so there has to be discussion leading to that. I think that the Top level WP:RS assessment will be particularly difficult to reduce to numerical values, and it is within that level I would have thought any "Counter-Influences" would be dealt with. Surely if a source is agreed as passing WP:RS, the only basis for exclusion is that it's not relevant to a specific article ? And there's a related aspect which adds complexity, and that is that the source may be sound but the existing text misrepresents that source so that in terms of article competetance the text may be 'Counter' while the source is fine. I can't see any alternative to discussion, although I'd be very interested in seeing proposals for an algebraic solution. In practice I would expect there to be agreement in the majority of cases because there isn't a requirement for lots of 'interpretation'. The framework simply acts to make it plain what it is editors had agreed on and to facilitate a common approach to editing actions in response to that agreement.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be easier to collate assessments if we used math, math takes some of the "opinion" out of the assessment, it's hard to argue against simple math. But I'm in no way trying to remove the discussion aspect, which I also think is crucial. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 02:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Maelefique, could you add numbers (perhaps in parentheses or otherwise set off) to the examples above so we can see how they'd work?   Will Beback  talk  02:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried not to beat up on Nik's nice looking arrangement too much, the italics are all the new things I added. There's certainly room for improvement (ie, maybe each category is more flexible if we make it out of 5 instead of 3), but I think you can see the idea. Even after expressing some doubt on things, add up the numbers, and "Well I didn't agree with this part so I lowered the rating, but, overall, it still looks to be a reliable source based on the final tally"... or not. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 05:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"Counter indications" is a good addition, I think, and allows for covering the "pros and cons" better. My fear with numbers in this context is that they could become an end in themselves, with arguments over digits and thresholds. But that fear may be empty. There are currently eight specific sources on the disputed issue list. Once we have this framework to the point that it looks usable then we can try it out on those sources. During and after that process we may find ways of improving on the framework. In other words, this doesn't have to be perfect right now, just good enough to get us started.   Will Beback  talk  05:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

One suggestion - let's not try to decide on a "minimum acceptable level" initially. It'll probably be obvious that 2s are unaccetable while 8s are reliable, but I don't see how we can draw all sharp line between, say, 5 and 6, especially since the inputs may not be evenly weighted. Perhaps the right levels will be clear once we've used it a number of times. Other thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  05:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I agree that the scoring system is worth going ahead with, however as with all scoring schemes there’s a danger of creating mathematical artefacts that cause peculiar results. For example if we apply Maelefique’s proposal to Darwin’s “On The Origin Of Species” it would (by any reasonable person) be scored 3 + 0 + 3 = 6, despite it having no relevance to the Project, in comparison an entirely relevant press report might be scored from -3 to 9 with a median of just 3.

I think this structural problem could be largely avoided by reducing the numerical choices at both the top and mid level assessments – in both cases there are no rational intermediate scores, a source either qualifies under WP:RS or it doesn’t, likewise a source is either relevant or it isn’t; in both these cases the numerical value is either lowest negative or highest positive, -3 or +3.

By adopting this simplified scoring for the top and mid level assessment, the potentially subjective “Counter Indications” can be contained in consideration of the base level assessment. The numerical minimum acceptable level would be 6 – a reliable source and relevant with no counter indications.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

My gut instinct is that scoring won’t work in the long term, as it is tempting to be used as a ‘prescriptive’ lever to avoid consensus. However, I’m not opposed to giving it a try. It would be good if we agreed that the scoring should be as a tool to be used where appropriate, but not should not become prescriptive nor trump other means of obtaining consensus.Savlonn (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As a specific example, consider the use of ‘Time’ Magazine, which would be categorized as a journalistic source, and thus be scored lower than a Scholarly source and higher than a self-published source. I would agree with this scoring assessment based these categories. However, this doesn’t answer the question of whether this is the ‘best’ source for a particular subject area. As others have pointed out, a source should only be considered appropriate if the subject matter discussed falls within the primary area of the source’s expertise.Savlonn (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

For discussion of Prem Rawat from a religious observation perspective, scholarly sources would indeed be the best sources. This would include areas such as the nature of his teachings or the charismatic rather than intellectual nature of his religious leadership. However, for the personal, non-religious aspects of his biographical notability, journalistic sources should be scored as more appropriate than religious scholars. Religious scholars would not consider it to be within their professional remit to comment on fleets of luxury cars or other controversial, non-religious aspects of his biography that are key to his notability. As the controversial events of Prem Rawat’s youth formed the basis of his notability, so we must reflect them with fair weighting through the use of the best sources available, which for this subject matter would be reliable journalistic sources.Savlonn (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree with all the comments above, I wasn't proposing the rating system as a be all/end all way of determining things, but I think it could help quantify sources that might otherwise be unclear in their usefulness. It would be just another tool, not an arbiter. And a quick correction for Nik, you said the range was from -3 to 3, they way I had it set up, it would just be from 0 to 3 in those categories, which may change his math a bit, although keep his general point valid. In reference to "is this the best source?", while there will probably be some significant exceptions (such as the Darwin example above, which I think most editors could easily see as a legitimate exception), the numbers would give us a starting point as to which sources are worth looking at further, and which ones we should probably spend less time arguing about. One the one hand, I think this system might prove useful, on the other hand, it might just be another layer for everyone to argue about during assessment and thus slow everything down further, I don't know. Either way,I'm just throwing it out there, if we decide it's unworkable, you're all off my christmas card list, but I'll get over it. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Given that we are bound by Wikipedia rules, the point that Savlonn makes about the scoring system (or any other system) not superseding other means of consensus is I guess axiomatic. I certainly think it is worth 'trialing' a scoring system, and of course I don't expect anyone would seriously suggest Darwin as a relevant source, however the fact that the system allows an obvious qualification for a non relevant source suggests to me that it may allow less obvious but equally non relevant sources to qualify via scoring, which would rather defeat the object. I think the resolution is as I suggested, automatically give non RS and non relevant sources an automatic -3. I did get that Maelefique was proposing a 0 to 3 system, it was the lack of a negative figure for failing under WP:RS and relevance assessments that I think was the problem. But ... my arguments are not really about facilitating a 'best source' judgement, rather what I've been proposing is geared toward identifying future action - keep source, consider use in other articles, remove cite and replace with alternative, re draft text etc, so we may be talking at cross purposes, in which case I'm happy to withdraw my reservations so long as we have a clearly stated basis for what the 'score's' primary purpose is. One final point, like Savlonn I don't see differential scoring between scholarly, journalistic and self pub categories as being appropriate. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone opposed to using this framework, at least on a provisional basis? If not, I suggest we adopt it and move on.   Will Beback  talk  22:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not opposed to giving it a shot. JN466 08:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Test on a Disputed Source

As a check on how the framework might work on a more complex case I've made a test run here [1] I'll add in scoring later, using both Maelefique's initial proposal and also my suggested amendment to that proposal. In this example I've simply grouped all the cites from the one source and done a single assessment, I suspect that will be sufficient given the particular source, however other sources may require going through cite by cite. Given the potential for us to produce a lot of text in this process I wonder if there might be a better way to handle the process than simple successive posting on a page like this. The set up that Steve created for the previous Mediation worked rather well for comparing and integrating different text - perhaps that or something similar might speed things along ? --Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

To my mind Cagan's always been a WP:SELFPUB much like a communist state-published biography of Lenin, or an official biography of Mao, or an authorised biography of some Hollywood great, etc. Of course Mao or the famous actor didn't publish it himself, but no one expects the book to contain anything the subject didn't want it to contain. We have rules governing use of WP:SELFPUB – nothing unduly self-serving, no claims about third parties – which if you think about it pretty much excludes any shenanigans this source could be used for. JN466 23:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's leave the discussion of Cagan for later. I'm sure we'll all have something to say about it.   Will Beback  talk  23:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah yeah I know. I couldn't resist it. JN466 00:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Cuz we've never had any kind of disagreement with sources before have we?...*cough*cough*Collier*cough*cough*... -- Maelefique ^(talk) 01:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope, never. :) JN466 01:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Cites by Source listing

I've started a sandbox page with Cites listed by Source [2]- Cagan as per the test run, but without the analysis, plus also the Geaves listing. I'll add the other debatable sources in due course so we don't all have o go over the same ground searching out what is where. The numbers in square brackets are just the footnote numbers as they appear in the current article texts.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Collier, Conway & Siegelman, Patrick and Time Magazine cites now added. I can't find any current use for Watts or Randi, nor where these sources were originally applied to or what they are. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Randi may require a re-looking at. If I recall correctly, cites to him were only removed because some editors who are no longer active had a gigantic hissy fit about him. That's just my recollection, I might be wrong, but I think we should look again. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 19:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Randi and Watts were both removed due to complaints. Watts is quoted in the New York Times. Here's the quote with context:

The doctrine has about as much intellectual content as the fudge sundaes the guru dotes on. As the late Alan Watts, the all-purpose mystic and expert on Zen Buddhism, said, "The core of this doctrine is a sacred ignorance." The important thing is the experience the guru claims he can give, to change people and make them want peace. It follows, as puddles follow rain, that if everyone has this experience, the world will be at peace. God is presented as a practical experience rather than an abstraction that must be taken an faith or that is susceptible to theological demonstration. The guru promises to take doubting Thomases and make them see, hear and taste the divine. This is enormously appealing to young people who are disillusioned with ideologies and who have sought the meaning of their lives in such forms of direct experience as the protest movement and the drug culture.

— Oz in the Astrodome, By Ted Morgen, The New York Times,December 9, 1973

Randi expresses a point of view on the teachings:

Only the very naive were convinced that they had been let in on some sort of celestial secret.

— An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural, [3] St. Martin's Griffin, 1997, ISBN 0312151195, ISBN 9780312151195

I don't think the debate was really whether these are reliable sources, but whether they are relevant.   Will Beback  talk  20:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Organization of Prem Rawat

Resolved

We've now agreed on a framework for assessing sources. Some editors have asked to move forward with evaluating disputed sources, starting with Cagan's Peace is Possible. However I'd like to request that we first address a small issue that I raised before mediation began. Back in June an uninvolved editor started a thread about problems he perceived with the Rawat bio. Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 41#Article hides controversy, is not presented in a neutral way. As part of that thread, we discussed the section headings and I proposed to rename them with date ranges. There seemed to be consensus and I also checked a few days later to see if anyone objected. Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 41#Organization. I made the changes in three edits, which also involved a few small moves of text to improve the chronological flow. Combined edits. No one objected before or after. However due to the recent disputes over the content Steve Crossin reverted the article back to a May 27 version. I am now proposing to re-do those organizational edits to the fully protected article. Any objections?   Will Beback  talk  04:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No objections! --John Brauns (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No objections! --Nik Wright2 (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 19:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. -- Sylviecyn (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem.--Rainer P. (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No objections, that was the first thing we had said we were going to do. Please go ahead. JN466 00:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for the quick response. Since it was nearly unanimous (And I don't think Savlonn would object either), I've gone ahead and made the changes to the protected page. [4] Let's hope all of our work goes as smoothly as this!   Will Beback  talk  05:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice work folks! Sunray (talk) 07:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, things look promising here. I applogise for my recent inactivity, we have been moving house and unpacking, etc. I'll try and keep a closer eye on things. :) Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 09:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Assessment framework discussions

Cagan/PIP

Adjourned
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Review Source = Cagan, Andrea, Peace Is Possible: The Life and Message of Prem Rawat, pp.109, Mighty River Press (2007), ISBN 978-0978869496 List of currently used cites = [5] Review of WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB Jayen contends that P.I.P is self published and may be considered to meet the requirements of WP:V and therefore count as a Reliable Source. To examine this contention we need only assess whether the source meets, or is excluded under WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB. WP:SPS Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable. Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.  ::Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. Assessment If P.I.P is considered to be a Selfpublished book (notwithstanding there is no identification of who the self is !) It could only be accepted as a Reliable Source if it has been “…. produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.” This is unabiguous, unless the author has been previously published on the topic of the article in a third party publication WP:SPS is not met. Cagan has not previously been published on any of the articles falling within the Project’s remit and P.I.P must therefore automatically fail as a Reliable Source. Further WP:SPS specifically prohibits use of Self Published material as a source for BLP material, this would apply throughout the Project articles and to every reference to a living person – unless the specific exception allowed under WP:SELFPUB is met. WP:SELFPUB Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: # the material is not unduly self-serving; # it does not involve claims about third parties; # it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; # there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; # the article is not based primarily on such sources. Assessment To meet the requirements of [WP:SELFPUB]] the “publisher” must be identifiable as the “subject”. The named publisher is Mighty River Press, which is not treated as a subject in P.I.P and therefore the requirements of [WP:SELFPUB]] are not met. If it is contended that MRP is not the primary agency of publishing, and that MRP is a front operation for a surreptitious self publication, it will be necessary for editors to provide evidence that makes explicit such an exceptional claim. Incidental connections between MRP and TPRF can be shown and while these connections raise questions about the independence of the named publisher there is currently no independent verification of these connections. If editors were to accept that MRP was operating as a proxy for TPRF, then conceivably P.I.P could serve as a source for material dealing specifically with TPRF but not about any other entity or person. If editors were to conclude (though no evidence has been shown) that there was a daisy chain of proxies and that TPRF was in turn acting as a proxy for an individual(s) or other entity(ies) then issues of defamation would arise because of the strict rules governing the operation of Non profit corporations. Conclusion Wikipedia places strict limits on the use of self published sources, the requirements of both WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB have to be met before a source can be considered as being reliable. In the case of Andrea Cagan/P.I.P, WP:SPS is not met and it is not possible to demonstrate with any certainty that the exceptions provided for by WP:SELFPUB could apply to any person or organisation that would qualify for inclusion within the Project articles. Therefore Andrea Cagan/P.I.P cannot in principle qualify as a self published Reliable Source for the purposes of the Project. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Discussion Publication is by an entity not registered as a Corporation and with only the one publication credited to it. There is no history or other evidence of the exercise of editorial probity. The author does not have academic accreditation or standing, nor journalistic standing beyond co-authoring “auto-biographies”. Funding for research for Peace Is Possible was provided by an entity (TPRF) committed to the promotion of the subject of the work, additionally the publisher’s CEO is in business partnership with an individual who at the time served on the Board of the same entity. The source is irrevocably compromised in terms of WP:RS. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC) It's essentially a self-published source, meaning it should not be used in an unduly self-serving manner, or to make contentious claims about third parties, per WP:SELFPUB. I believe it is reliable for family matters such as the names or birth dates of his children. The use and reliability of a source always depends on context. --JN466 13:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC) If it is Self published - who is the 'self' that is doing the publishing ? Without that definition it is impossible to judge whether the claims are self serving or not or whether claims about third parties are being made. Further, depending upon who the self publisher is deemed to be, our concern may well have to extend beyond a mere test of WP:SELFPUB to concern about potential defamation in respect of what relqationships are being proposed as existing between (an) individual(s) and entities regulated under the IRS tax code.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The following is sourced to it in Prem Rawat: In October 1971, Rawat returned to India with 300 western followers to celebrate his 14th birthday. He revisited London in February 1972.[42] Over the next few months he spoke in Europe and Africa, and at forty-five venues in North America, then made quick trips to Japan and Australia, before returning to the US.[43] I've never felt this to be a problem. Most other times we use it as a source, it is used as one of 3, 4 or 5 sources backing up a sentence. I propose we should look at individual uses of Cagan, and assess the appropriateness of the use. Where three other sources say the same thing, we can just drop the ref. Where it is the only source cited, we can either look for other sources corroborating it, and replace the ref, or decide to delete the article content. (Note: from tomorrow, I'll have restricted Internet access for a week and won't be able to participate much.) JN466 14:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC) If we want to go to individual cites then we can do that within the assessment framework using the Mid and Base level assessments, however as we are dealing with a single publication, we need to agree that WP:RS (this is what the Top level assessment is) can be met in principle. If we can't agree that then the Mid and Base level assessments are not relevant. I recommend that everyone goes through the framework process in their own workspace, rather than trying to resolve everything 'on the fly' in the discussion here. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC) We never found any clear evidence that the book is self-published by Rawat or his organization. We did find numerous omissions and mischaracterizations that called the overall reliability of the work into question. The author does not have a good reputation nor any expertise in the field, and the publisher is a one-book company with no reputation at all. Overall, it appears to meet the definition of a questionable source, and is proably only reliable as a source for its author's view, which are not significant. When used as an additional sources it's unnecessary, and when used alone it's insufficient. I think we should remove all the citations, and only use it if there are special circumstances.   Will Beback  talk  17:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC) The author, Andrea Cagan, is a best-selling celebrity biographer, so it's a stretch to say she has no expertise in the field of celebrity biographies. We found that some contentious stuff is glossed over, but I am explicitly advocating not using Cagan for contentious or self-serving stuff. On something like the names of his kids, for example, or whether Rawat travelled to London in 1972, I trust she is reliable. At least, no one so far has claimed that Rawat did not go to London in 1972. JN466 19:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC) "Best-selling" does not equal reliability. When I looked up the reviews of Cagan's books they were not favorable about her work. If facts are so obscure that they only appear in this book then maybe we don't need to include them.   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Also, I'm not sure that "celebrity" is the best description of Prem Rawat. "Celebrated", perhaps.I f we view Rawat more as a spiritual or religious figure, then Cagan has no expertise in that field that I'm aware of. Let's take a tally of this source's pluses and minuses: Cagan has written previous celebrity biographies She interviewed or read notes from selected associates of subject The book includes minor details of life not found elsewhere The book has been translated into several languages Cagan's writing and research have been poorly reviewed in the past Publisher has no reputation for reliability Cagan never interviewed the subject (despite living in the same small city) Cagan apparently never interviewed any disaffected followers or critics The book fails to ever mention the Divine Light Mission, and refers to it or the Elan Vital as the origanization that arranges Rawat's travel. The book ontradicts numerous reliable sources on the matter of Rawat's ulcer, to the point of seemingly having it wrong. The book barely mentions Millennoium '73, called one of the two most important events in the subjects' life, and similarly brushes off the Halley beating. The book apparently alters quotes from decades ago, to use his current honorary name rather than the one he used then. The book includes an odd account of the "smuggling" incident which contradicts other reliable sources Counting those up, I think the negatives outweigh the positives.   Will Beback  talk  07:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC) I do not agree with you. *Who reviewed Cagan’s writing in the past? *Does the publisher have a reputation for unreliability? *Is there really a necessity for interviewing the subject? That would be a point, if it were an auto-biography, which it isn’t. She interviewed a lot of other relevant people. *Is there really a necessity for interviewing people who overtly carry a hostile attitude to the subject of a BLP? Imagine someone garnering information from your ex-wife or other enemies (which you hopefully don’t have, but Rawat does) and using it for your biography. *DLM or EV may seem to be rather anal details in a biography that has a completely different angle on the subject. We should therefore not use PIP as a source in the DLM or EV article. *Same goes for Rawat’s ulcer. From Cagan’s viewpoint it may well seem not overly significant. And what numerous independent reliable sources do you mean? *Millenium was a party for the Rawat family, arranged by them. Like the pie incident and the Halley beating, and the “smuggeling incident”, it may have been a feast for contemporary mass media, but in a more centered biography that actually acknowledges the subject’s value and dignity it does not really need a prominent place.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Rainer.P, do you agree or disagree with Jayen's contention that the source is selfpublished ? Also how do you see a single book publisher with no apparent corporate status, as meeting the requirements of WP:Sources "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" given that is axiomatic that a single book publisher has no reputation at the point of publication ? --Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC) I'm not so sure. It should be called self-published, if Cagan wrote on Cagan. What JN suggests, sounds more like a vanity publication, but then that is defined (Wiki): "For the purposes of this category, a vanity press is defined as one that does any of the following: requires individual writers to pay for part or all of the publication costs; asks writers to buy or sell copies of the publication; publishes the work of anyone who subscribes to the publication or joins the organization through membership fees; publishes the work of anyone who buys an advertisement in the publication; publishes work without competitive selection; or publishes work without professional editing." Doesn't sound a thing like PIP to me.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Rainer, there are reviews of Cagan's previous work at User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat#Cagan reviews. Regarding the reputation of the publisher, that's one of the criteria for evaluating sources at WP:V. "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It isn't necessary to interview the subject of a biography, it's just odd not to when the subject is available and close-by. Just like the treatment of certain well known events is odd. The omission of the DLM and EV is beyond odd, it'd downright weird. What material is needed from this source, What important information would we have to omit if we stopped using PIP as a source?   Will Beback  talk  19:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC) It's a real biography, and the only coherent one available, even if it does not possess encyclopedic merits. seems weird to me to ignore it. There was a demand for it, it has been written and sold. It has been translated, I don't know about the other publishers in the other languages. If Mighty River appears suspect, how about the publishers of the Spanish, German and Hindi version? Any research? Are these also self-published? If orthodoxy forbids use of Mighty River, I might offer to translate relevant parts of the German version back into English, if the Austrian publisher meets your demands. Talking about weird.--Rainer P. (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Responses to Rainer P. – (1) I’ll leave it to Jayen to make his arguments in favour of the WP:SELFPUB classification, however we are concerned at this part of the assessment process with a precise judgement of whether in principle P.I.P can meet the requirements of W:RS it is important therefore that we stick to defined WP policy and guidelines – neither W:V or W:RS use the term “vanity publishing” and it does not seem relevant to the assessment process here. (2) Both Will and I have now raised the question of WP:Sources "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" . For the discussion to proceed in a logical way, it would be helpful if you or other editors who share your view would specify how, with just a single book to its name, a publisher can possess “a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy” ? Unless that question can be addressed with some affirmative evidence, then this part of the discussion would seem to be closed. (3) Regarding the translated versions, it would have been helpful if you had read the page Will had linked to where this issue has long ago been dealt with – I’ll update what I wrote a year ago: Alles Cultur (the listed German pubisher) lists www.soulchill.com, www.woptv.de and www.elanvital.org as partners (the original links page is dead, here is the webarchive version [6] ) and the claimed Spanish publisher Editorial Dilema [7] is merely a reseller and the claimed publisher of the Portuegese translation is Bajo el Alma which exists only as link page to Editorial Dilema and to various Rawat promtional sites [8]. The Alles Cultur website makes no mention of any publishing history whatsoever. Even if any of these claimed publishers has exercised professional editorial assessment beyond mere translation, each one is still subject to the same test that applies to the American publisher which is, does it have “a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy” ? That test needs to be demonstrably met, not merely asserted in the opinion of one or two editors. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Will asks: What material is needed from this source, What important information would we have to omit if we stopped using PIP as a source? Almost by definition, if the source is dubious, its contents are dubious and Wikipedia articles do not therefore have a need. The way to proceed, if the source is shown to not meet the stringent requirements of an encyclopaedia, is to remove all that does not belong and restucture what is left - if then, and only then a case can be made for, in very limited circumstances, reintroducing something from a less than adequate source consideration could be given. I'm confident there is nothing in Cagan that cannot be done without, it would help if other editors could seek to answer this question, and to specify what it is they think that Cagan is essential for.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Cagan's book contains first-hand accounts and on-the-record statements from very relevant people in Prem Rawat's life. If this article needs to be a high quality biography of the person, how can it omit on-the-record accounts of Bihar Singh who was Prem Rawat's father driver and personal assistant, witnessed his death and went to become Prem rawat's driver when he went to the West. How can it omit the accounts of many other people mentioned in the book such as the first Westerners that went to India and met Prem Rawat when he was 8 years old? In anything the book needs to be used much more that it is currently. The book was #9 in Amazon best seller list just a few days after it was published. Amazon stocks several millions of books. It has been translated to German, Portuguese, Brazilian Portuguese, Slovenian, and Spanish. Cagan is a known biographer. Some people here have made efforts to dismiss her as an author, but that is just their opinions. Many articles in WP are using follower's published books as sources for their articles. One example is Meher Baba, which is almost exclusively based on books published by organizations related to Meher Baba or by his followers. These books include first-hand accounts of people that knew Baba and so these are important sources. Same about Ramakrishna, Mother Meera, Sai Baba of Shirdi, Guru Arjan Dev and others. People here keep using the guideline about reliable sources, but seem to bend it to dismiss the book. The guideline says that Wikipedia only publishes "the opinions of reliable authors". Why is Cagan not reliable? What is the measure here? Is that the opinion of some people here that are upset because in a few pages of the book they see themselves described as being part of a group of ugly detractors? If that is the case, is that not a conflict of interest? Don't tell me that these people are putting Wikipedia first before their interest. Or is it because it is a sympathetic book? What's wrong with that? Many biographies are, if either written by the subject, or by people warm to the subject. That is not sufficient ground for dismissal. "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." Where is that common sense? Here is a comprehensive book on the life of Prem Rawat, that is being dismissed just because some people don't like him. Someone made the argument that Cagan's book is a questionable source. The policy says that "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no editorial oversight." Does Cagan have a poor reputation for fact checking? Where is evidence of that? Where is the evidence that there was no editorial oversight? Or is that another poor argument to dismiss a 500 page book that contains details of Prem Rawat's life?--Rainer P. (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC) I've asked Sunray to come help us find consensus on this matter. I'm afraid that otherwise we'll just make our points without getting making progress towards an agreement. At the risk of doing just that, here's my second reply to Rainer. PIP contains first-hand accounts. So do many unreliable sources such as blogs. The inclusion of first-hand accounts does not make a source reliable. Many publications are popular but still unreliable. For example, the National Enquirer has one of the largest circulations in the U.S., but is not considered reliable. Reliability is not conferred by popularity. The speed with which the sales of PIP reached their high levels implies that the book did not achieve its popularity like most books, but rather because it's publication was anticipated. It is hard to find any reviews in 3rd-party sources. There's no indication that Cagan is a follower of Rawat, so the comparison to books by followers of other spritual leaders is inexact. PIP has been shown to be unreliable when compared to other sources. It is plainly incorrect on basic matters such as the hospitaliztion and the emancipation, and is severely skewed on other matters. The requirement for a reputation is a positive one. The lack of a reputation (as is the case with the publisher) does not confer reliability. The burden of proving reliability is on those who wish to use it. Rainer describes the book as "comprehensive" and so does the back cover. However in our investigation last year we found that it is far from comprehensive. Aside from the matter of the omissions themselves, the inaccuracy of the claim of is another error that weighs against the reliability of the source. Rainer says that other editors are opposed to the book simply because it's sympathetic. I'd turn that around and ask whether it's supported as a source for the same reason. I'd also like to remind editors here that after we're done with PIP we'll review other disputed sources. If we set the bar low here then it's hard to see what other sources could be excluded. For example, Playboy magazine has an excellent reputation for fact checking. Whateve we do, let's be consistent. Finally, I'll repeat my question - what would we lose in the articles by not using 'PIP as a source?   Will Beback  talk  22:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Rainer states that "Cagan's book contains first-hand accounts and on-the-record statements from very relevant people in Prem Rawat's life". If that is a criteria for inclusion then the accounts from Bob Mishler, Mike Dettmers and Mike Finch should also be included in the articles. Does Rainer agree? --John Brauns (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Very funny. I think Cagan had reasons not to give these peolpe a voice, just as WP has. BTW, Mishler is mentioned four times in the article.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC) What reasons do you think she had?   Will Beback  talk  07:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Will, Cagan definitely displays a non-stop positive opinion on Rawat in her book, and she does not claim scientific neutrality. She makes some comments about detractors, but otherwise keeps it centered on Rawat’s life. BTW Rawat himself does not seem to take much notice of detractors, very rarely mentions them. Compared to the number of people benefiting from Rawat’s teachings, detractors appear to be a tiny, albeit highly vociferous group, although they may even usurp a majority status, like in this project. I think, people who buy a biography have a desire to learn more about the person than about a relatively insignificant number of people whose sole notability consists in ever having been in contact with Rawat enough to tell. Everybody knows that there is shadow where there is light. But to see the object, you don’t need the contours of the shadow, when the object is lighted quite well. If I read a book about water, I don’t primarily care to know all about the drowned. I also understand, WP must maintain an NPOV-attitude, so we may have a problem, when Cagan doesn’t. Sorry for so many words, maybe mediators can formulate it very short.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks for that reply. While authors may make all sorts of creative decisions, the more "creative" they are the less reliable they are. If a biographer creates a fictional character for the subject to interact with, it might make for a more interesting book but it's not going to get cited as a reliable source. (see Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan). Likewise, picking sources because of how well they'll reflect on a subject is a recipe for a hagiograph, which may appeal to this book's target audience, but it isn't a plan for writing a reliable biography.   Will Beback  talk  09:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Rainer, could you explain your comment please? Why should some people with first hand experience of Rawat's life be included, in your opinion, and others excluded? Anyway, Nik's question is more relevant - does the Publisher meet the requirement set out in WP:SOURCES that the Publisher should have “a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy” ?--John Brauns (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC) It's important to keep these discussions as dispassionate and civil as possible, and to keep personal opinions and speculations out of them. Reputable biographies are written by authors who use all sources available, including those about critics. No reputable author would write potentially libelous material about individuals written about, without contacting them for their side of a story. Also, the most glaring omissions in PIP is that she didn't interview the subject of the book when he's a living person who lives in the same town as the author; she didn't interview critics mentioned in the book, whether by name or generally, when they certainly are available; and Cagan omits the mention of Divine Light Mission and Elan Vital which are the major supporting organization in the U.S. that continues to this day to support his work. It also should be noted that Rawat is not a celebrity, as so many of Cagan's other book subjects have been, such as Grace Slick and Joan Lunden, both of whom consulted with Cagan on their (auto)biographies, or co-wrote their books with her. I agree with others here about the questionable publisher, Mighty River Press, which has not ever published any books before or after PIP, and has no reputation in the publishing industry on anything, including on fact-checking and legal fact-checking. I also welcome moderation in these discussions by Sunray and Steve. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC) The discussions on these Project pages cannot be ‘business as usual’ with breaches of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF based on accusations of whether anyone of us is pro or anti one of the subjects of one of the articles falling within this Project’s scope, I hope therefore that Rainer P. will amend his comments. The only relevant test of the P.I.P book at this point in the discussion is simply: does the Publisher meet the requirement set out in WP:SOURCES that the Publisher should have “a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy” ? Unless there is an answer to that question, which is affirmative, then the only logical conclusion that we can reach is that as a non selfpublished source P.I.P does not meet the requirements of WP:RS. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC) We may need help in order to achieve consensus, so I've asked Sunray to guide us here. If he's lucky he's far from any computer for the time being but he's sure to return soon. Meantime we should avoid racking up thousands of words of commentary, as we've done in the past (mea culpa). I suggest we just give this a pause until Sunray or Steve are available to moderate.   Will Beback  talk  11:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Will asks "what do we lose" if the book is not used. At this time not much, as it has not been used enough - that's the real problem. The biography section on the Hans Ji Maharaj, Prem Rawat and Satpal Maharaj could certainly benefit from the inclusion of material from the book.--Rainer P. (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Rainer P. above says "Where is the evidence that there was no editorial oversight?", that is exactly the opposite of what the guideline specifies as necessary. The source needs to have evidence of editorial oversight, *NOT* evidence that there is none. These are not equivalent, and the onus of proof falls upon the editor that wants to include the source. -- Maelefique (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Another point that Rainer made which hasn't been addressed are the translations. Translation does not turn an unreliable source into a reliable one. To use an extreme example, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were "were translated into every language of Europe and sold widely in Arab lands, the United States, and England." Yet all those translations hasn't made the text more reliable, and neither has its popularity.   Will Beback  talk  20:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC) How relevant or useful this may be I am unsure, but I might as well note it anyway. Last July, I emailed Andrea Cagan in regards to this book and asked a few questions, mainly on the possibility of omissions etc. She said that she was hired to write the book through agents, she did her own research on Prem Rawat, and that she wrote from personal findings, and that any omissions were her mistake, due to dealing with a large life and many countries to cover, in a short space of time. How relevant or useful this may be, I'll leave up to you, but I thought it might help. I also have a copy of the book on loan at the moment, so that might help too? Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 22:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Hi Steve, I hope you and yours are well. Cagan basically didn't tell you anything because as you know, in the book publishing business authors routinely have agents that work with book publishers on their behalf to broker writing contracts. Authors also routinely take responsibility for omissions and errors, since their name is copyrighted on the work. Thanks for the effort though! :) Sylviecyn (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Not suprised that it wasn't useful, but I figured I might as well note it down. (I'm alright, but I've been working on a PC for like 5 hours, it took me 20 minutes to restore corrupted system files, 4 hours to recover the hard drive when it went corrupt. Dunno how.) Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 12:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC) As I understand the discussion, some participants have questioned whether Cagan's book meets the requirements of WP:V. It has been observed that Peace is Possible is the only book published by Mighty River Press and that it thus has the earmarks of a self-publishing situation. It has been further suggested that the source does not meet the criteria for self-published works. On the other hand, it has been pointed out that the source is only used for biographical details and there is no evidence of errors. It seems to me that everyone acknowledges that there are valid questions about this book as a reliable source. If it is challenged as a source, the burden of evidence (of its reliability) falls on those who would use it. In sum, the arguments for use of this source are that the author is credible as a fact-checker and that the book is only being used for details about PR's life. Would participants be willing to accept it on that basis? Sunray (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC) I dispute that there is no evidence of errors. Would it be helpful to list the known errors and omissions?   Will Beback  talk  03:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Note that the first bulleted list in this section includes some of the knwon errors and omissions.   Will Beback  talk  03:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC) (ec) No. Where did we agree that this author is credible as a fact-checker? Because she got some stuff right? What details would she be supplying that we don't already have better sources for? And where would we set up our list of provisos to check against for using this source for other things in the future? -- Maelefique (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Rainer wrote above: Why is Cagan not reliable? What is the measure here? Is that the opinion of some people here that are upset because in a few pages of the book they see themselves described as being part of a group of ugly detractors? If that is the case, is that not a conflict of interest? This does not appear to be a legitimate reason to regard the book as a reliable source, and it also appears to be a distinct failure to assume good faith by attributing hidden motives to other editors. I don't think that's a very helpful approach to collegial editing. Let's stick with discussing Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and avoid using terms like "ugly detractors" to describe each other.   Will Beback  talk  21:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Will, I did not call detractors ugly. All I wrote was that they are described as ugly in Cagan's book, to show a plausible motive for a possible COI. I did not say I agree with Cagan.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Summary of concerns about Cagan as a source From the list above, the following have been listed as concerns about the use of this source: The book fails to ever mention the Divine Light Mission or the Elan Vital (group), and refers to it or the Elan Vital as the origanization that arranges Rawat's travel. The book contradicts numerous reliable sources on the matter of Rawat's ulcer, to the point of seemingly having it wrong. The book barely mentions Millennium '73, called one of the two most important events in the subject's life, and Brushes off the Halley beating. The book apparently alters quotes from decades ago, to use his current honorary name rather than the one he used then. The book includes an odd account of the "smuggling" incident which contradicts other reliable sources. Is this a complete list? Sunray (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC) There are several more things. I wrote a nice list but then pushed the wrong button and lost it. :( Anyway, I got this from User talk:Steve Crossin/Mediation/Prem Rawat. Other disputes include: Inaccurate claime by pyblisher that book is comprehenisve Lack of reputation of one-book publisher Poor reviews for author and lack of expertise I believe there's more. (And I slightly edited the list above).   Will Beback  talk  There are also concerns about omission of the book! Please give me a little time, I'm too busy to comply so fast.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Rainer P. - it would be time saving for all of us if you could concentrate on the issue of WP:V [9] "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Cagan's authorship failings are secondary to this, although they certainly must raise editors' concerns - but the standing of the publisher, not the author is the first test the source has to meet, unless that is resloved furthr discussion is pointless. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC) P.I.P - Structuring the Discussion I’m concerned that we have rapidly lost sight of the actual task we set ourselves – which was not to get into a bartering system about who will accept what – it was to develop a systematic approach to assessing Sources on a Project wide basis. It was for this reason we agreed on a hierarchical framework; in applying that framework to Cagan we are concerned at this point in the assessment process with only one question: Can P.I.P be considered to meet WP:RS in principle ? In this particular case we have an obvious point of principle around which the test of meeting WP:RS rests or falls, that is: does the publisher have “a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy” ? unless it can be demonstrated that this condition is met, we have no basis to go forward and consider how the source may be used within the Project articles. The fact that P.I.P is currently used within the Project articles has no bearing on the principled question; however the practical issue about whether the source can be done without, has so far drawn no response that shows removing P.I.P as source would reduce the encyclopaedic standing of the articles. Economy of effort would suggest we concentrate on a narrow, logical application of the assessment process that we agreed, with a clear understanding of its practical application. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Nik has a point. If the source doesn't qualify as reliable we shouldn't be bargaining over its use. It doesn't meet the basic standards for reliability so the logical response is to leave it out except as an entry in "further reading".   Will Beback  talk  09:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC) PIP isn't required as a source even for the most mundane facts such as dates of birth, etc., and the article already contained that type of information with actual reliable sources, long before the publication of PIP. Will says that it could be an entry in "further reading." If it's not a reliable source for information in the article, I wonder if it should be recommended in that manner on an encyclopedia that already rejects it's reliability? I can't remember at the moment what dates Cagan did get incorrectly, but do remember that there are a few inaccuracies on that front, too. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Agree Nik has a good point, if someone can prove it to be a RS in theory, then we can move on to specifics, otherwise, there's no point in discussing it's other issues, and adding it to a "Further Reading" heading is also a good idea. -- Maelefique (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Seems a bit like a show trial to me, where the outcome was framed from the start. I am not surprised. You go ahead without my consent in this matter.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Rainer, please stay. Would you assert that the publisher has a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy"? I thought we all agreed that it did not. If it does then that changes the equation.   Will Beback  talk  19:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC) I'm not leaving the project. I'm just declaring my discontent over the way the Cagan issue has been handeled, because my arguments, even the insinuation of a COI, were not really addressed but simply overridden by this highly bureaucratic publisher thingy, which in this case felt rather arbitrary to me. Actually I am convinced, if Cagan's book were negative in its spirit, you would have found overwhelmingly important reasons to feature it. So, I want to at least share my disaccord with the rest of the gang.--87.167.220.212 (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC) I'm glad you're not leaving. Wikipedia has policies, including policies about sources. I'm sure we all agree that we should follow those policies unless there's a major reason to ignore them. The policy on verifiability of material says that the publishers of sources should have a reputation for reliability and fact checking. Do you agree that Mighty River does not have that reputation, or is there some information we haven't found?   Will Beback  talk  20:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your patience, Will. I will answer tomorrow, need some sleep now.--Rainer P. (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Back! Please let me elaborate a little to support my points (well, you asked...). Reliable sources: "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - of course a publisher has no reputation at all, when they publish their first book. So in this case it is not possible to assess reputation. Questionable sources: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no editorial oversight." As this is the first book by this publisher, it is not possible to assess poor reputation for fact-checking. There is no way to assess lack of editorial oversight for the same reasons. Self-published sources - acceptable "when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." - Cagan is a well known biographer, has written two books (one published by Simon & Schuster) and co-authored or ghost-written another twelve books, all but three biographies of personalities. PIP falls somewhere between the lines of these three ideals, but then: : "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." Cagan says about the making of PIP: "So, in preparation for this book, I decided to interview those who knew him well, and I met with everyone from his cook to his photographer, from his friends to his lifelong students. I taped conversations, I watched DVDs, and I read his talks that have been meticulously saved for posterity. Finally, after reviewing thousands of pages of interviews and media clippings, watching many of his taped addresses, and speaking to a multitude of people who knew him during different phases of his life, a picture began to emerge." This book contains important historical data, such as: - Information about Sri Hans Ji Maharaj, his first marriage and other data related to his second wife, Prem's mother - Information about the ashram in Dehradun, and the life of Sant Ji (as Prem Rawat was known as a child) - Information about the opposition to Hans Ji Maharaj by Hindu traditionalists, with substantial data about the colonial India of the early 1900's and how that affected Sri Hans progress as a young person and his evolution until he found his teacher Swarupanand in 1923 - Information about Sri Hans family life, travels, the efforts he made to disseminate his guru's teachings, and the challenges and opposition he found, as well as Hans Ji reluctance to create an organization - Details about the relationship between Hans Ji and Sant Ji - Information about the succession, and the initial steps as satguru by then 8 years old Prem Rawat - Details about Prem Rawat’s life a child, and as satguru. His interactions with Christians and Muslims and how that affected him and his worldview - Details of Prem Rawat’s travels in India before being "discovered" by the West, and his ambivalent relationship with the Mission his father founded - Details of the first people that met the young master and how it came about that he landed in the West as a 13 year old guru - Details about the opposition and media frenzy around his arrival, including information about his first visit to France - Details about the evolution of the US organization in Denver, as well as its demise. Will says that Millenium is not mentioned, but it described in page 192 and forward. For example on page 193 Millennium is described as "having failed miserably to draw new people." - Details about the awareness of Prem Rawat related to how his message was seen as controversial, and the perceptions of the media at the time - Details about Rawat’s television interview in the Merv Griffin Show in 1973, in which Griffin asked him "Are you rich?" - Details about the source of discord between family members about the future of the movement - Many details about the courting and marriage to Marolyn Johnson, and the confusion it created amongst the family and some of his followers, and the initial split in loyalties between the brothers - Details and information about the smear campaign initiated in India by those opposing him, and the rumours that circulated at that time both in India and in the US - Details about the persecution of students in Chile and Argentina during the dark days of oppression by military-led governments in these countries - Details about Prem Rawat's relationship with officials of the mission, the disagreements and eventual termination - Details about Prem Rawat's first visits to apartheid South Africa, Malaysia, West Africa, Japan, and other countries - Details about a piece of land called "La Tierra" in Argentina - Details about Prem Rawat's reaction to the death of his mother - Details about an interview Prem Rawat gave to Carmen Posadas in 2002 (a known writer Spain and the recipient of the "Premio Planeta" a coveted literary prize) - Details about the founding of the Prem Rawat Foundation - Details about the organization in India, including an interview with Deepak Raj Bhandari who heads the organization there - Interview by Eva M. Peña, a Spanish journalist in 2006 - Dozens of photographs never published before - and much more... I don’t see how the aims of Wikipedia are being served by omission of this book, even if one or the other minor point may be debatable. And BTW I am sure you agree that the comparison with the Elders of Zion or the National Inquirer is not only a little over the top.--Rainer P. (talk) 12:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC) That makes things much clearer; your acknowledgement that > "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - of course a publisher has no reputation at all, when they publish their first book. < means that P.I.P must fail under WP:V. However you now appear to be reversing your earlier position with regard to self published ? If this is now the thrust of your argument, could you specify who you consider the "self" to be ? --Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Nik, I am afraid I still don't know who "self" is. And I think Wiki criteria fail to cover a case like this, where reputation can not be assessed at all, and we have to finally fall back on "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." So even your elaborate assessment concept may in this case not deliver, though it may prove valuable in other cases. We should hear other editors' opinion.--Rainer P. (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Rainer, your list of details of Rawat's life from PIP is impressively detailed, but I could produce a similar list of details of Rawat's life from my website, ex-premie.org, which is also largely based on first hand accounts from people who knew Rawat well. In fact, the significant content of ex-premie.org is now available as a downloadable book, which is the first book published by the authors of ex-premie.org, just as PIP is the first book published by Mighty River Press. Explain to me why the details from PIP should be included, but those from ex-premie.org should not. BTW, I am not arguing that ex-premie.org should be allowed as a source, but pointing out, by your argument, it appears to have an equal claim for inclusion. --John Brauns (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC) John, my first thought was: Because it's a BLP, and we all know, what that implies. Maybe I or other editors can think of other reasons or come to a different judgement, if we have time to think.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC More thoughts: - Andrea Cagan is a known author and biographer. While the publisher is a new publisher, Cagan is known and has been published before by several reputable publishers such as Simon & Schuster - The Peace is Possible book is listed in the Library of Congress. Note that the Library of Congress does not accept vanity publications or e-books. You are comparing a published book with a website or an e-book based on a website.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Yes, other of Cagan's books could be used in Wikipedia, because they have been published by several reputable publishers (who have a reputation for fact-checking). This invites the question, why wasn't this book published by such a publisher? The Library of Congress includes just about every book ever published regardless of its reliability so that is not a criteria for inclusion as a RS in Wikipedia. I was comparing the content of the two sources, but as others have said here, without a publisher with a reputation for fact-checking, content is irrelevant. --John Brauns (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Reliable sources: "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - of course a publisher has no reputation at all, when they publish their first book. So in this case it is not possible to assess reputation. Questionable sources: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no editorial oversight." As this is the first book by this publisher, it is not possible to assess poor reputation for fact-checking. There is no way to assess lack of editorial oversight for the same reasons. I don't think I could disagree more strongly with these 2 statements. If they have no reputation, then that's how it's assessed, as a 0 out of (pick a number). Further, and again, you are mis-interpreting the guideline. It is not up to the editors here to prove there is not a reputation or to present any reason why lack of any reputation is ok; it is up to the editors who would like it included to prove that there IS a reputation and is therefore not in violation of the applicable policies. If you can do that, I think we can then move on to content. Otherwise, whatever content is in the book is frankly, irrelevant. -- Maelefique (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC) fyi, the ISBN summary for this book starts with the sentence "Peace Is Possible is the first full and complete story of Prem Rawat.", I'm not sure I need to say anything about fact-checking, editorial oversight, or even really big exaggerations of claims here.... -- Maelefique (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Maelefique, I agree that PIP may not be considered a reliable source as defined in Wikipedia, because there is no proof available that the publisher is reliable, although the author could be considered reliable, as she is known and notable. So, PIP falls somewhere between a reliable source, a questionable source and a self-published source. In the last two cases, there are specific criteria designed to include such sources within certain limits. This means that we need to exercise our editorial judgement to find ways to include the biographical information from the book into the Hans Ji Maharaj, Prem Rawat, and Satpal Rawat articles, given that there is a wealth of information that will undoubtedly make these articles substantially better biographies. BTW I will do some traveling in the next days to come and probably won't come near a computer, so I have to put my part into the faithful hands of you fellow editors. So, if you miss me, I will be back (note the pun!). Don't break anything ;-) .--Rainer P. (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Rainer, how can we check that the biographical information in PIP is actually true? Enjoy your break! :) --John Brauns (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Cagan also neglected to provide her own sources used to write the book: chapter notes, footnotes, and a bibliography are not included. Those items are standard in any reputable biography or any non-fiction book for that matter. There's no way to independently verify (much less her one-book publisher) anything in the book based on Cagan's lack of sources. Also, PIP cannot be considered self-published. I think we can put that question to bed because there's no evidence Prem Rawat paid Cagan to write the book. Sylviecyn (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Some have argued here that the publisher's lack of a reputation for fact checking is acceptable because the author has a reputation. However I'd like to remind folks here that Cagan's reputation is not good. Slick goes on a bit more, suggesting that Cagan served only as an unusually active editor. But by the end of Grace Slick's messy, muddled, indulgent and occasionally amusing autobiography, I'm kind of relieved I did miss most of it. ...Her reflections often read as if her collaborator, Andrea Cagan, scribbled in the margins of the manuscript, "PIs. insrt yr thots on 60's here." Slight but endearing, Somebody To Love? briefly catalogs Slicks highs ... and lows ... There appear to have been several pages let to fill, and they've been added out with screeds on politics, taxes, and the plight of the panda bear. Even if one could stomach this cliche-fest ("Stand Like a Mountain, Flow Like Water"), the photos ultimately do the thing in. [Slick] certainly doesn't remember much in this tame, chatty memoir, short on details, absent of feeling, written in a perky style more appropriate to women's magazines like Redbook than a gritty rock 'n' roll survivor like Slick....The fear and shock Slick experienced is clearly visible in "Gimme Shelter," the film of that disastrous day, but don't look for it in "Somebody to Love?." In the end, she resorts to quoting Chronicle columnist Ralph J. Gleason rather than plumb her own emotions. ...This strange dissociation from her own life continues through discussions of her alcoholism and recovery -- even in episodes like her 1994 arrest by Mill Valley police, after she aimed an empty shotgun at officers summoned to her house by an equally inebriated boyfriend. Ranting about saving lab animals, she often comes off more like a harmless eccentric than a sharp intellect. We learn which of the band members she slept with, and even how one of them is proportioned, but we aren't told her favorite songs, her most meaningful lyrics, or what she considers her artistic successes and failures. Which is a pity and a loss. Jefferson Airplane, and Grace Slick in particular, were among rock's most radical political voices during the '60s and early '70s. You wouldn't know it from reading this book. Grace is far more interested today in her animal rights activism than in revolution. In Somebody to Love? the sex and drugs are in plenitude. It's the rock and roll that is in meager supply. Convicted Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss says she's considering asking writer Andrea Cagan to help pen Fleiss' long-anticipated memoirs. Interesting, since Cagan's last ghostwriting gig was for a far different personality: New Age guru to the stars, Marianne Williamson's best-selling Return to Love. I haven't seen any evidence that Cagan has a reputation for fact checking or reliability. These reviews make it appear that she wasn't up to the challenge of ghostwriting the biographies of Joan Lunden or Grace Slick, which at least had the benefit of major publishers overseeing the efforts. So we have a book whose publisher has no reputation, whose author has a middling-to-poor reputation, which has no notes, and which provides unusual or outright incorrect descriptions of the events that can be checked in other sources.   Will Beback  talk  19:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC) Proposal for conclusion of discussion : The task we set ourselves was to assess whether P.I.P met (in principle) the requirements set out in WP:RS. As Sunray has noted above “If it is challenged as a source, the burden of evidence (of its reliability) falls on those who would use it.” So far Rainer.P has argued for retaining P.I.P as a Project source based on the completeness of the treatement of a biographical subject (pertinent primarily to just one of the Project’s articles), however Rainer P. has acknowledged that the Publisher of P.I.P does not meet the requirements set out in WP:V which underwrite WP:RS. JN has argued that P.I.P counts as a self published source, and Rainer P. having earlier argued against this appears now to agree with that assessment, however to date we have no indication as to who, for the purposes of the Project the ‘self publisher’ is considered to be. All the other editors who have contributed to the discussion have expressed their dissatisfaction with the use of P.I.P as a Project source, therefore I propose that unless a satisfactory answer can be given to the question “If P.I.P is selfpublished as defined in WP:SELFPUB, who is the selfpublisher ? then the discussion logically concludes with a decision based upon the Framework, that P.I.P does not in principle qualify under WP:RS and we move to Action = remove from current use and replace with alternate reference or amend text. If P.I.P were to be accepted as selfpublished it would anyway require significant amendments to its current use in several Project articles. If following the Action = remove, subsequently an individual or business entity relevant to the Project articles, could be demonstrated as being the selfpublisher of P.I.P then new sourcing could be added on that basis. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC) I agree, but I'm willing to give Rainer.P a couple of days to find that link to prove selfpub. He did say he was going to be away for a few days, and I while I don't want the project to grind to a halt, I wouldn't want the wheel of progress to roll right over him when he wasn't looking either. -- Maelefique (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Let's not rush it. In retrospect I think it was a mistake to complete the Cagan assessment before starting the discussion. When we take up the next disputed source I suggest we go through the assessment together.   Will Beback  talk  16:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC) Nik's summary looks pretty good to me. I would say that, given the concerns raised about the source, it is not possible to give it blanket acceptance as a reliable source. Given the scarcity of sources, however, it may be possible to use some excerpts from the book provided that consensus were achieved on their reliability (and conditional on their not being challenged). Sunray (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure what Will means when saying "doing the assessment together." Isn't that what we've been doing by discussing and assessing the source, PIP? Also I disagree with Sunray's statement that there is a scarcity of sources for this subject. There isn't a scarcity of sources on the subject at all, quite the contrary. Additionally, many past heated disputes have arisen about PIP over exactly what Sunray described -- "it may be possible to use some excerpts from the book provided that consensus were achieved on their reliability (and conditional on their not being challenged)," -- so opening PIP up for future use would make this entire discussion and exercise moot and futile, if PIP is not resolved once and for all. PIP should be used in its entirety or not used for anything at all. I never heard of a "partially reliable" source. By treating PIP or any other similar unreliable source for piecemeal purposes while declaring it unreliable for other material is just not a viable option and will certainly open up PIP for future disputes next year. Plus, using that argument, one might also argue that EPO (ex-premie.org) has plenty of reliable material within its one thousand pages appropriate for use in the articles. It's longevity alone gives it more reliability and credibility than PIP. Don't worry, I'm not promoting EPO, I'm just saying... :):) Sylviecyn (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC) I largely agree with Sylviecyn. Regarding her response to my point, it's a process issue. If your house were going to be re-assessed for taxes, wouldn't you want to be there to see the guy go through, and to point out relevant issues before he prepares his final report? If you were being tried for a crime, wouldn't you like to have an opportunity to say someong in your defense before the verdict is decided? Now those analogies aren't pefect, but I think that it's natural for folks to get a bit riled up when they've given a decision without having any chance to participate in the decision making. The outcome may be the same, but it goes down easier if one doesn't feel excluded from the process. It takes a bit more time initially, but the final decision is likelier to be accepted peacefully.   Will Beback  talk  22:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC) (outdent)I should have been clearer – it wasn’t my intention to shut down the discussion of P.I.P/Cagan, rather it was to offer a proposal for the way the discussion could be usefully concluded. If Rainer P. or JN do come back with evidence that P.I.P should be treated as selfpublished then we would need to make a clear distinction between the conclusion we have reached regarding the reputation of the publisher of a non self published work, and any conclusion that might accept P.I.P as selfpublished as this will have implications for how the source is used. Will is quite right to say that we should ensure that the ‘process’ is explicit and understood by everyone. I’m going to be only erratically online if at all for the next week or so but if other editors are able to move forward, could someone explore with Steve whether the structure he used for the 2008 mediation could be adapted for the assessment process ? It would help a great deal I think if we could all see our individual arguments set out separately. Certainly when we move on to dealing with Geaves we are going to have to be more sophisticated given that we will be dealing with a number of publications – although none of the publishers should throw up the problems that P.I.P has, given the publishers unequivocally qualify under WP:V. If anyone is interested I’ve set out my assessment of Geaves at [10] --Nik Wright2 (talk) 07:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Ok, it's been 7 days since I suggested giving Rainer P. some time to come up with some kind of proof that P.I.P. is self-published, and while I didn't want the wheel to roll over him, I don't want it to stop rolling either. Any objections to wrapping up our discussion on P.I.P. now? Possibly with the proviso that if someone finds that evidence we're looking for regarding self-published, then we will re-open the discussion? -- Maelefique (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Agree as per Maelefique. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Agree --John Brauns (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Agree. It's time to move forward.   Will Beback  talk  03:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Agree -- Sylviecyn (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC) No agreement -- I feel editors are issuing a double-bind here, saying PiP is not self-published because not published by Rawat, but saying it is unreliable because it is published by someone with links to Rawat. Playing two ends against the middle, while knowing full well there are three or four foreign-language versions of PiP, published by mainstream publishers, who obviously felt Cagan was reputable enough to take on. To say that Cagan has a poor reputation, based on a half-dozen negative reviews of Slick's book, is making it a little easy; Cagan has half a dozen New York Times no. 1 bestsellers to her credit. Personally, I'd say PiP is about as reliable and as well-published and as POV as Conway & Siegelman's opus. ;) JN466 15:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC) No one here said here that PIP is unreliable because "it is published by someone with links to Rawat." Where on this page is that mentioned? Please point that out and I'll stand corrected. All we've been doing is assessing the work PIP, based on Wikipedia reliable sources guidelines and policy. Also, if a source is deemed ureliable in the English language, the fact that it is translated into another language(s) doesn't make it more reliable by virtue of it being translated. That doesn't make sense to me, perhaps Jayen can explain it. If we stick to the Wiki criteria and not try to characterize what editors are doing/thinking/issuing, we'll be in good shape to reach consensus and to foster good faith. Thanks! Sylviecyn (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Small point, she does *not* have "half a dozen New York Times no. 1 bestsellers", she has 3. Can you point to some policy that we have misconstrued, or do you just not like the result of their application here? Also, we've had the discussion about translations before, taking a bad text into a foreign language does not boost its reliability or notability. -- Maelefique (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Okay. She has 3 NYT no. 1 bestsellers, and 1 LA Times no. 1, as well as various top 10 entries. [11] WP:SPS is a different kettle of fish from WP:SELFPUB. The latter covers use of self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves, while the former covers use of self-published sources on topics other than themselves. The book is not strictly speaking self-published. It is a contract job by a well-known biographer, who mainly seems to have interviewed friends, family and students of Rawat, and published by someone with close links to Rawat, who presumably also paid Cagan. As such it is not fully independent, and treating it per WP:SELFPUB seems appropriate, even given the fact that Cagan said she researched Rawat independently. I disagree with you on the weight to give to foreign translations. If a book by a reputable author and single-book publisher is published by reputable publishers abroad, this is a positive reflection on the work and publisher. The Brazilian publisher is SRS Editora, who judging by this Babelfish translation of their blurb seem to be a mainstream outfit. The Spanish publisher is Editorial Kier, a publishing company specialising in esoterica that has been around for more than 100 years. Either of these would pass the minimum threshold of RS. Another thing the Cagan book has going in its favour is that it begins with a warm endorsement of Rawat by Emilio Colombo, a former President of the European Parliament and former Prime Minister of Italy. (To save you all the trouble of pointing it out to me, I know the man is gay, in his eighties and admits to having used cocaine once. I also know he is one of the most highly honoured Italian politicians ever.) That is a notable commentator, and in my view, our article on Rawat should mention the book and Colombo's endorsement. Quite apart from all that, it is ludicrous to argue that editors should pretend the one available recent biography of the subject of a Wikipedia article doesn't exist, simply because we don't like its POV, which makes it dwell on things other sources deemphasise, while at the same time deemphasising things other sources have dwelt on more. We should note the POV of a source and treat it accordingly, that's all. JN466 17:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC) ...it is unreliable because it is published by someone with links to Rawat. No one is saying that. The book does not qualify as reliable because it is published by a one-book publisher and because it has so many problematic passages. And Maelefique is correct that translation does not increase its reliability.   Will Beback  talk  16:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC) I agree the book has problematic passages, and anything sourced to it should be examined for plausibility and relevance, in line with WP:SELFPUB. Here is another example: page 315 says Rawat received the "International Humanitarian Achievement Award". Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL – the award is non-notable, and almost all web references (bar three) are about Rawat receiving the award. A passage like that is clearly not good to use in our articles; it's just puffery. JN466 18:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC) PIP covers both those incidents that are reported elsewhere and those that are not. In virtually every area where we can compare coverage, PIP contains severely skewed or simply incorrect information. However that doesn't mean PIP is more accurate about those topics which are only reported there. The logical assumption is that it is just as inaccurate about those topics as the one we can compare to sources of known reliability. Regarding your point about ignoring the book's existence, I don't think anyone is arguing against including it in a "further reading" list. But if we follow the Wikipedia critieria for evaluating the reliability of a source, which does not include a book's position on the best seller list (much less the sales of the author's other books), this book does not qualify. As for the "warm endorsement of Rawat" by Colombo, I don't see how that affects the reliability or unreliability of the book. We have plenty of opinions of Rawat that appear in reliable sources. Some of Colombo's comments are also printed in a press release isued by TPRF, FWIW.[12]   Will Beback  talk  19:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC) I'm just back from a long break and have spent an hour or so reading this extraordinarly detailed discussion around Cagan. As I have read the arguments, my opinion on whether to include this book as a reliable source has changed. I have changed my position from excluding the book on the basis of it clearly being a self published to source, to giving it qualified acceptance with a narrow criterion of only being as a source for undisputed facts about Prem Rawat's life. Regardless of the strong arguments around being a self-published source, there does appear to have been good fact checking for much of the material, even though several errors and omissions have been identified. Considering that there is otherwise a lack of post 1970s reliably sourced information about Prem Rawat's life, I think we should at least salvage the undisputed factual information in this book? The strong analysis and detail presented on this discussion page can act as reference for governing the use of this book in the article, and thus reducing the risk of mis-use of Cagan as a source. Savlonn (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Savlonn, how do we identify which 'facts' from the book are 'undisputed'? The only way I can think of is check them with a genuine reliable source. If no such reliable source exists, then I suggest the 'facts' are clearly not significant enough to be included in the article. I have already argued that those parts of Rawat's life that are not sourced to reliable sources may need to be removed from the article. I see no problem with this. Do you? :) --John Brauns (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Hello, I’m back! Never thought I’ld enjoy a break so much. And thank you for pausing the discussion, that was very friendly. Please help me to understand: I take from the rules on self-published books, that “Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.” Inasmuch as the book can be regarded as self-published – even though it does not meet all criteria – can this be applied? Cagan is a biographer, and she has been published before by Penguin Books and Simon & Schuster. And, re:Library of Congress: I think John is wrong when he says that "The Library of Congress includes just about every book ever published". There are very specific criteria for eligibility set by the LOC: Generally, vanity press and self-published works are not accepted a long list of ineligible publications, such as mass market paperbacks, e-books, items not intended for wide distribution to libraries, and more http://pcn.loc.gov/pcn005.html and most important, being able to be "capable of answering substantive bibliographic questions." LOC Eligibility: http://pcn.loc.gov/pcn004.html - a strong statement that means that there is a bibliographic review with the LOC in order to qualify.--Rainer P. (talk) 02:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure I understand the relevance of this information. Are we thinking that a book is a reliable source for a Wikipedia biography simply because it has been acquired by the LOC? That does not appear to be part of the WP criteria, or even a relevant standard. (Do we need to list examples of obviously unreliable sources in the LOC? It wouldn't be hard.)   Will Beback  talk  06:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC) You are certainly right, Will. I thought it was just another piece of information in the mosaic of this rather complex matter, to help with a synopsis.--Rainer P. (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC) The Library of Congress (LOC) is a library that acquires all books and materials published. It's the largest library in the world. Merely because a book is in LOC's collection doesn't mean the LOC endorses the reliability of any published work, nor does it give a published work any particular prestige, just because LOC bought the book. It's a library like other libraries, except that it's governed by the U.S. Congress. That's all. PIP can be found in many other libraries; that also doesn't mean it automatically makes it a reliable. It would be most helpful if we stick to the Wikipedia criteria and policies when assessing sources. Thanks! Sylviecyn (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC) We are once again stuck in a circular argument because editors are refusing to accept a logical process: Sunray as moderator of the project, has agreed with the summation I made above with the proviso that limited use of P.I.P could be made where such use gained consensus. There have been a number of non-global (they don’t address all aspects of WP rules and guidance applicable to the source and project) arguments against the summation and we now have a set of cross purpose proposals – the only way out of which is to follow a logically structured process. Editors who aren’t willing to either accept a process or make a proposal for an alternative are in danger of appearing to be filibustering. JN466 considers that the arguments made against use of P.I.P/Cagan create a ‘double bind’. A double bind does indeed exist where there is no agreement upon whether a source is or is not selfpublished and where there is no identification of who or what is the self publisher. The logical way out of this double bind is that there be a clear identification as to who the self publishing entity is – if that identity cannot be furnished then selfpublished status can not be debated further because there can be no definitive outcome. Savlonn argues that P.I.P/Cagan is usable because it is “not selfpublished”, however Savlonn does not address the question of the publisher qualification “a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy” . Rainer P. argues (as far as I can tell) for P.I.P/Cagan to qualify under both selfpublished and not self published, but Rainer P. has already said he can not demonstrate who the selfpublisher is, and has acknowledged that a ‘single book’publisher can’t qualify under the “a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy” requirement. Five other editors consider that P.I.P is neither self published nor that its publisher meets the test of WP:V. In the light of these incompatable positions I'm making a further proposal for a process to conclude discussion of P.I.P/Cagan Process: That a definitive proof of who the selfpublishing entity is, is provided, or where no proof is provided, the lack of such proof is taken as the basis that further discussion of the Selfpub issue falls and we move to point 2. If a proof is accepted then point 4. arises. Editors indicate whether they consider the named publisher – MRP can qualify under “a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy”. Where there is dissention from qualification, the burden is to show that the publisher qualifies, the burden is not upon demonstration of the negative. Any dissention from agreement that MRP qualifies sees us move to point 3. Consensus that MRP does qualify would mean that we would move to stages two and three of the assessment process. Dissention from qualification, and with no proof of MRP meeting the relevant qualification being given, will mean that further discussion, in terms of any general use of P.I.P/Cagan within project articles falls. The required action is removal of all current use of P.I.P with a potential for reintroducing very specific uses where there are no objections. The burden would fall to those editors who want to make such use, to make talk page proposals which would only be accepted for use where consensus for 'exceptional use' was reached. If P.I.P is accepted as Selfpublished, its use would be constrained by its selfpublished status, and we would move to Stages two and three of the assessment process as it would apply to a selfpublished source. I propose we accept this amended process for conclusion of the discussion and set a deadline for all editors to answer the substantive questions in the process, of three days from the date/time of this signature --Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC) I have argued, that the rule for “a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy” can not be applied to a ‘single book’-publisher, which is simple logic. So this point should not be given undue weight. Beaurocracy can be used as a weapon, I'm German, I know this. Besides, my above question has not been adressed: “Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.” There is something like circumstances. Can that be of help? And I wish, beaurocratic solution enforcement schemes came not always from Nik, who is party here, doesn't feel like mediation to me. And, I am not "filibustering". The solution Nik is driving at would mean a gross loss of relevance for the articles, for reasons I have pointed out above. It would be even worse than before.--Rainer P. (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Rainer P. you are still mixing up the the reputation policy here. What we cannot prove with a single-book publisher is that they have a reputation for fact-checking and acciracy (haha, mini-joke right here!). Period. Therefore they do not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Period. Stick a fork in it, it's done. Full stop. Finis. At best, we could look at their single book and say it seems reliable, or not, this one however, has many flaws, so I doubt you would want to go that route. I don't see how undue weight comes into play when we are talking about policies. I'm not sure I can accept Cagan as an expert when she fails to mention EV or DLM or many other important things about PR. And I strongly disagree there would be a gross loss of relevance either, especially if we are only to use this book for references that are backed up by other sources, seems like that would make this book completely redundant, and removing redundancy would not in any way lead to a "gross loss" to the articles. -- Maelefique (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Rainer P. do you mean by "not given undue weight", that because a single book publisher doesn't have a reputation, that WP:V doesn't apply and that in effect every first book publisher should get a free pass ? For such a proposal to stand it would have to be explicit in WP:V - it isn't, so it doesn't. Also your reading of "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.” appears awry - where has Cagan previously been published as an expert on the subject of any of the articles relevant to this WP project ? And anyway if we can't identify the selfpublisher, the self published provision doesn't count - it's not enough to claim it's self published, we need to know who it is self published by. Also if you dislike the logical (where's the bureaucracy ?) approaches to resolving the otherwise unresolveable that I've suggested, please provide an alternative proposal; this is not Mediation, this a Project and editors should be concerned with arriving at solutions, not just making arguments which someone else is supposed to resolve.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC) No free pass for every first publisher, but not a rejection based more or less solely on that argument, either. The book may have shortcomings, but it definitely has merits, too, as I had listed above. And Cagan can be called an expert on biographies. She mentions a lot of private details, which make up a biography and which are mentioned nowhere else. And is this really not mediation? That explains why I feel domineered at times lately.--Rainer P. (talk) 07:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Next steps This has been an excellent discussion, IMO, but I note that there are two basic positions and little movement toward consensus. My suggestion, awhile back was to consider evaluating Cagan on a per case basis, rather than giving her blanket acceptance. That is, if someone wanted to use Cagan to support a particular statement in an article, they would first discuss it and get general agreement for its use. That proposal didn't get very far, so here's my question: Would project members be willing to move on to discussion of other sources (or other matters) and come back to Cagan later? Sunray (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC) No problemo.--Rainer P. (talk) 09:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC) I disagree that Cagan be used on a per case basis for the same reasons I stated previously: That is exactly the method that has thrust editors into edit warring and stalemating in the past on these articles. It's never worked before and will not work on this project, especially next year. I don't think it would help for us to drop the Cagan issue after so much effort has been put into this discussion, with arguments and facts still fresh in everyone's minds. Why drop it now? We're making progress!  :) Additionally, we were on the verge of reaching consensus until Rainer P. and Jayen466 arrived at the last moment to argue their objections again. Therefore, I propose that with each new issue a deadline be imposed for discussion, two weeks for instance, and then when things are winding down and consensus is being reached, we also have a deadline for finalizing the matter. Otherwise, we're going to go through this recycling of old issues forever without resolution and that's exactly what we've been trying to avoid by first getting into mediation and now this project. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Rainer P and Jayen466 are very much a part of this project. How are you going to accommodate their concerns/proposals? Sunray (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC) If I understand Sunray's suggestion, it would be appropriate to remove PIP as a source across the board, and then users who wish to use it as a source for specific assertions would make their case for its reliability in that context. If that's the case then I think that's a good solution.   Will Beback  talk  08:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Accomodating the concerns/proposals of Rainer P and JN466 is a challenge that the project has to take on - but we need to understand that a)their positions on P.I.P are in contradition to one another so both can not be accomodated on this particular issue b)both are arguing for positions which are in large measure counter to WP policies and c)the discussion is set to the reverse of what would normally be a process of source assessment - that is we would be looking at what to include and which could be negotiated on the basis of certain agreed principles, but instead we are dealing with an unsatisfactory source that is widely and inappropriately used in a number of articles, and in this case neither Rainer P nor JN466 will countenance any reduction in that current usage. I'd be happy to accept further discussions on the use of P.I.P on the basis of a build up from a zero account (as Will has now also proposed) - that is remove all that is there currently and then, work to include P.I.P on the basis of some strict principles; this is what I proposed as part of the Process outlined above. To date I see no attempt from Rainer P or JN466 to accommadate other editors' concerns, simply a reiteration of their respective positions, accomodation is a two way process and at this point I think the burden is on them to provide some flexibility.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC) It is not only JN466 and me. It is also Savlonn who does not agree, as posted on September 9th. And I believe the discrepancy between JN and me is more a formal one and can be easily settled.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC) I think you may need to re-read Savlonn's position on this, as I did not read it to be an endorsement of your position (Savlonn?). I am ok with the concept of a "build-up from zero" attempt later, but I admit that I do not see how that's going to be possible, it's a zero for a reason. It's a bad source, and I don't know how we can get around that to even look at the content. -- Maelefique (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC) We need to break through this logjam. I suggest that we unprotect Prem Rawat in order to remove the PIP citations from it. Then we should follow Sunray's suggestion and have more focussed discussions of the use of PIP in specific instances. Meantime, I'll boldly remove the PIP citations (and the material sourced to it) from the unprotected articles.   Will Beback  talk  17:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Okay, let's have a look at what we've got. In Hans Ji Maharaj, you retained the wording, "On July 31 after an improvised ceremony, Mata Ji and his elder brothers touched Rawat's feet as a sign of respect. Though officially the leader of the DLM, because of Rawat's age authority was shared by the whole family". In Divine Light Mission, you deleted the reference to the foot-touching gesture. If the foot-touching gesture is covered by one of the sources that remain in Hans Ji Maharaj, I suggest we should restore it in DLM. If it is not in any source but Cagan, then we should delete it in both articles, as it falls under self-serving in WP:SELFPUB. In this edit to Hans Ji Maharaj, you deleted the name of Maharaj's spouse. I disagree with that; Cagan is reliable for that. Cagan also points out that Hans Ji Maharaj had a second wife concurrently with the first, and gives her name too (Sinduri Devi, also p. 11). I think we should mention both wives and their names in the infobox. This is a typical case where Cagan adds potential value. Cagan also mentions the daughter he had with his first wife, Didiji. She too should be mentioned among his children, sourced to Cagan. When it comes to Prem Rawat, could I ask you to copy the text to a talk page and show us what the text would look like after your edit, before we perform the edit in namespace? JN466 18:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Actually, we mention the two wives and their names in the article anyway, citing other sources also commenting on them. What Cagan makes clear though and our article does not, is that both wives lived together with Hans Ji Maharaj in the same household. And the children's names don't seem to match between the infobox and the article body (scratching head). I think this article still needs a bit more work. :) Cheers, --JN466 18:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC) The rentention of the foot-touching in the Hans Ji article was accidental - I'll go fix that now.   Will Beback  talk  18:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC) ...you deleted the name of Maharaj's spouse. I disagree with that; Cagan is reliable for that. On what basis would we consider PIP to be reliable for that information? Is it the only available source?   Will Beback  talk  18:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Have you checked that none of the other cited sources mention the foot-touching gesture? --JN466 19:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC) If we have another source for the foot touching then we don't need to use PIP. Is anyone aware of such a source?   Will Beback  talk  19:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC) I'd also comment that "adds value" is not a criteria for evaluating the reliability of sources.   Will Beback  talk  19:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC) I'll have to have a look; and I might e-mail some of our absent friends to see if they are aware of any sources apart from Cagan that say so. I am sure we all recall Time mentioning though that the family frequently touched Guru Maharaj Ji's feet. --JN466 19:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC) We do have a source for them touching Prem's feet later on, but is that really relevant to the article on Hans Ji?   Will Beback  talk  19:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC) It's the circumstances of the succession; as such I didn't think it was out of place. JN466 19:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC) FWIW, the use of TIME as a source is one of the disputes yet to tbe settled. Some editors objected strongly to including general information about darshan and foot-kising, outside of this one purported incident.   Will Beback  talk  19:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Sources on the name of the second wife (Mataji): [13][14] I don't think it is feasible to argue that this information is wrong in Cagan. --JN466 19:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Great, so let's add those sources. I haven't seen "World famous modern gurus and guru cults by Nemisharan Mital 1990 Family Books" before, which doesn't appear to have an ISBN. Is there any objection to using Mangalwadi and Larson as reliable sources?   Will Beback  talk  19:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Larson is a polarised source. Its publisher, Tyndale, specialises in Christian apologetics. Here a couple of tasters from the section on Rawat (pp. 153-154): "Undoubtedly the passively receptive state of the willing devotee also allows demonic forces to enhance the dimensions of each aspect of the guru's ritual of receiving knowledge. [...] Clearly, according to 1 John 2:18-23 and Matthew 24:23-24, Maharaj Ji fulfills the role of an antichrist." To be used with circumspection! Mangalwadi is cited already in the Rawat articles, so I think the consensus was it's an okay source to use. (I haven't read it; I believe it too is fairly critical. Got a copy on order.) JN466 22:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Just noticed we have an article on Bob Larson, as well as an article on his book: Larson's Book of World Religions and Alternative Spirituality. JN466 22:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC) At least we know more about Tyndale than we know about Mighty River. I'll go ahead and add the information on the spouse from Mangalwadi.   Will Beback  talk  22:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Will, if I were forced to choose between citing Larson and citing Cagan, I hope you'll forgive me if the result would not be an automatic choice in favour of Larson. Jesus! JN466 22:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC) You prefer someone who writes about dog training and makeup? OK.   Will Beback  talk  23:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC) In any case, Larson was proposed along with the other sources that Google turned up. Maybe in the future it'd be more helpful to list specific sources rather than simply linking to search results. That'd cut down on the arguments about sources we're not going to use anyway.   Will Beback  talk  23:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Agreed, sorry for not being more thorough in my original post; I hadn't looked closely at the matches myself. Note though that we do cite Larson a few times in the Rawat articles. --JN466 23:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC) FWIW, Mangalwadi appears to contradict Cagan's account. He says there was "no place in the Mission" for the first wife. Indeed, I don't recall seeing any role for her in the DLM.   Will Beback  talk  22:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Cagan does not say the first wife had any spiritual role. She just said the first wife and the second wife were concurrent (Hans Ji Maharaj did not divorce the first wife) and that they lived together. Does Mangalwadi contradict that, specifically? JN466 22:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC) It doesn't really matter. We've got a source for the basic information.   Will Beback  talk  23:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC) We can continue to discuss the use of PIP is miscellaneous articles here. I'll start a new thread below to discuss its use in Prem Rawat.   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC) PIP in Prem Rawat Having heard no objections, I'll go ahead with removing the book and material sourced solely to it from Prem Rawat. Then we can start from scratch and individually discuss specific uses of PIP as a source .   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Will, I asked you above to make the changes as a test edit in user space before making them in article space. Time stamp 18:49, 14 September 2009. JN466 23:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC) I missed your earlier comment. I don't see a reason why we'd so. The majority of editors think that PIP does not qualify as a reliable source acording to WP criteria, and Sunray has suggested evaluating the book on a case by case basis. If we decide that any of the references qualify then it will be quite easy to add them back as appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC) I left in a couple of items that are non-controversial and for which we can probably find other sources.[15] (For example, I know there are sources for the names of at least his eldest children, but the article wouldn't not be worse if it didn't include them either.)   Will Beback  talk  03:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC) You are right, Will, that would not make so much of a difference. What makes the article worse is a sustained tendency to ignore the only actually spirited biographic take on the person of Prem Rawat, who is a living person, in favour of non-biographical, highly biased information from all kinds of interested sides, focusing not on the life of the person, but on the impact on other people in very different situations. You proceed without my agreement, and as far as I can see, without consensus.--Rainer P. (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Let's keep focused on the narrow issue of which, if any, assertions for which PIP is a reliable source.   Will Beback  talk  04:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Excellent work Will, that clears the way for a more considered approach to the use of P.I.P. A crucial point that we should adhere to - editors proposing specific uses of P.I.P should specify whether or not the use is in terms of selfpublished, that will help us avoid the contradiction of allowing a source to be both selfpublished and not selfpublished. Once one form of use is accepted then that is what we will have to stick with. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Um. Why are folks editing the Rawat article without consensus to unlock the article? WTF? Now Jayen is tweaking the article. Can we reassemble and discuss this? Can we lower the testosterone level in the room? Sheesh! Sylviecyn (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Jayen restored several of the Cagan cites, without any further discussion here. He used the edit summary, "...restore material cited to her that could not be construed as unduly self-serving".[16] Since none of it is self-serving to Cagan (except perhaps for the sentence he added about the biography itself) that didn't make any sense to me. I've restored the previous deletions and expect that Jayen will discuss the specific instances where he thinks Cagan is reliable and necessary, in order to achieve consensus. As with all articles but especially BLPs, the burden for establishing the reliability of a sourece lies with the editort who wishes to add it.   Will Beback  talk  18:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC) You will remember that I consider Cagan in some ways akin to a self-published source, because the publisher has links to Rawat. Unduly self-serving here meant unduly serving Rawat's interests. This is the criterion that I would like to apply in evaluating Cagan. Information on the names of his children, for example, is not unduly serving Rawat's interests. It is just basic encyclopedic information. --JN466 23:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Can you provide evidence of the link between Rawat and Mighty River? Did he finance the book? This is a key issue, but I haven't seen anything that indicates a direct relationship.   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Have a look through the Prem Rawat talk page archives. I believe it was Nik actually who pointed this out originally, though I may have got that wrong; it was a while ago. I believe, from memory, that the people owning MRP also held positions in EV (or something like that). --JN466 23:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC) I remember somthing like that, but it was a few degrees removed from Rawat himself. If we want to establish this book as being self-published by Rawat then I think we'd need to pin down a direct connection bewtween the subject and the publisher/author. Since Cagan says she never met Rawat, it's certainly not in the usual category of autobiography.   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC) If I remember correctly, somebody on the Ex-Premie-Talkpage dug up an information about Cagan having received expenses from Elan Vital for biographic research for her book, couple of thousand bucks, probably Nik will know more about it.?--Rainer P. (talk) 08:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC) I was wrong to have restored the deletion, due to the special editing restrictions on the article which I'd forgotten about. I apologize for doing so and have self-reverted. In the spirit of collegiality, I'd ask Jayen to withdraw his request to have me blocked for 48 hours at WP:AE. Discussion here would be more beneficial than blocking.   Will Beback  talk  21:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC) I asked you earlier to outline the passages sourced to Cagan that you would seek to remove, so that there could be a discussion about them before we go ahead and remove long-standing content from the article. We can go through them one by one, if you like. The first one is the names of Rawat's children. Cagan is a successful celebrity biographer. The names of spouses, boyfriends, parents, children of her subjects are the bread and butter of her craft. I consider her reliable here. JN466 22:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC) If the only source we have is not generally reliable, perhaps this isn't important information to include. See WP:BLPNAME and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive63#Children_of_a_notable_subject, which suggests that simply saying he has "four children" would be appropriate, since none of the children are really notable. Setting aside the reliability of the source, why should we name the children?   Will Beback  talk  23:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Members of the Rawat family have a tendency to become notable. Premlata is a vice-president of TPRF, for example. I've read speculation that Dayalata may one day become Rawat's successor. Cagan mentions she appears and performs at Rawat's events. The information on the names is available and adds value. I doubt the family would object to our having this info, since they cooperated in the making of a book that contains it. JN466 23:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC) The members of the Rawat family don't "tend to become notable." Where's the source for that? The only person in that family who is notable in her own right is Navi Rawat who is Prem Rawat's niece, and I doubt you'd find a reliable source for that in PIP or anyplace else. Being the VP of a small foundation is not notability. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Being a VP in Rawat's organisation means she has an involvement in the article topic, as did other notable family members of whom we have more than trivial mentions, even pictures, in our articles: Hans Ji Maharaj; Mataji; Rawat's wife; Satpal; Satpal's wife, Amrita; their sons, who are venerated as divine beings by Satpal's followers in India; Bhole Ji, his wife, and their daughters, similarly venerated; Raja Ji and his wife. I don't see a good reason to delete this information; it may be useful to the reader. JN466 15:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC) TPRF Isn't notable either. It's already been deleted, and when/if Dayalata becomes Rawat's successor, we should add that info; we should not guess at possible futures. Otherwise, I've speculated that I will be doing something noteworthy in the future too, do I get an article mention? I thought not... -- Maelefique (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC) If the children are notable then they'll be mentioned in at least several sources. I've read an account of the birth of the eldest, but that happened at the height of Rawat's fame, and I haven't seen any subsequent mentions. However, if they became notable we can always add them. The "I don't think they'd mind" justification gets used a lot on Wikipedia, often to excuse copyright violations. There's no way of knowing which BLP violations the subject would mind, so it's better to avoid making any. Let's just say that Mr. and Mrs. Rawat had four children.   Will Beback  talk  03:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC) The first child was reported by dozens of papers, the latter ones less so. [17] Currently, the article only refers to "three children" in the body text. Are you happy to believe Cagan that it is four? Or would you argue that the fourth isn't important if it's not mentioned in other sources than Cagan?? --JN466 19:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC) I presume that, when the family moved to Miami, there were three children, as reported, and another may have come later. You said that this individual's family members tends to become notable, so I'd suspect we can find another source for the size of this family. Would anyone delete the assertion if we didn't have a reliable source for it?   Will Beback  talk  If Cagan is how we know that he has four children, then why not cite her? The book actually has pictures of them. --JN466 22:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC) We also have this site: Teachings of Prem Rawat. Let's turn the question around. Suppose we find a posting on a webforum that mentions four children - should we cite that too? No, not if the source doesn't meet WP's criteria for reliability. Getting one fact correct doesn't make a source reliable.   Will Beback  talk  22:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC) I think that site is based on an old version of the WP article; at any rate, at first glance it looks even more promotional than Cagan. Cagan simply does not compare to a blog post. She is an established celebrity biographer, with a fact checker, some A-list clients and books published by several reputable publishers. Changing publisher does not suddenly make her unreliable. Reliability depends on context. In the context of "how many children does Rawat have", she is the most reliable, most detailed, and most up-to-date source we have, and the one we should cite. JN466 23:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC) If a blog or forum posting was the "most reliable, most detailed, and most up-to-date source we have" for a fact then would we use it or would we just leave out the fact?   Will Beback  talk  23:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC) If PIP were truly the most reliable source available then we'd be in real trouble. Geaves says that Rawat has four children so I added a sourced sentence to clarify the number of children, and deleted the children's names per WP:BLPNAME. When any of them receive significant notice in 3rd-party sources we can add mentions of them.   Will Beback  talk  06:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC) While searching, I found this: "Prem Rawat's Adult Children and Hate Group..." Apparently the children are a controversial topic in relations between the official movement and the ex-followers. All the more reason we should only use reliable sources. If the fact doesn't appear in a reliable source the correct response is to leave it out, not to lower the standards.   Will Beback  talk  22:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Interesting. JN466 23:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC) (outdent)Selfpublished or Not JN466 refers to the evidence I presented some time ago regarding the connections between the P.I.P publisher and TPRF. I can pull this together if it is deemed necessary – though as JN466 is the one relying on this perhaps he should be the one to trawl the archive. In essence the connection runs as follows: the person named on the MRP website as being the MRP CEO (MRP has no acknowledged legal corporate status so CEO may mean very little) is (or was up to 12 months ago) a business partner of someone who at the time of publication of P.I.P was a Director of TPRF, and the business in question shared a common address with MRP. This level of relationship raises doubt about the independence of MRP but it can not stand as definitive evidence that TPRF is the proxy publisher of P.I.P. Additionally the accounts of TPRF show that a sum was paid to a researcher to provide material for P.I.P however MRP makes no acknowledgement of this and it is impossible to tell what material was sourced from where, the book is unreferenced and the TPRF expenditure only demonstrates an attempt to control the content of P.I.P, it doesn’t make certain that TPRF is the proxy publisher, although perhaps that is not a wholly unreasonable conclusion. At best anyone arguing for P.I.P to be treated as selfpublished can on this evidence only conclude that the Selfpublisher is TPRF, and the restrictions of WP use of selfpublished works would operate accordingly – as there is currently no TPRF article, there is no basis for using P.I.P. JN466 appears to be arguing (perhaps I have misunderstood) that there is a second level of connection which allows that Prem Rawat is to be treated as the same entity as TPRF. No evidence has been presented that allows this conflation that runs MRP = TPRF = Prem Rawat. Further, as I noted previously this proposition has huge legal ramifications because it suggests a relationship between Prem Rawat and TPRF that would be illegal under the IRS code that governs the way non profits in the USA operate. It is precisely the relationship that JN466 (appears to) implies exists between Rawat and TPRF that saw the IRS take action against Ron Hubbard and CoS, and which saw CoS deprived of non profit status until after Hubbard’s death. Are editors really willing to go along with such a ‘charge’ against Prem Rawat ? it would at the very least seem to be against BLP policy and certainly would seem to put editors at risk of defamation action; in the absence of any definitive evidence I certainly wish to dissociate myself from any such implication. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC) You are totally missing the point. What I am saying is that Cagan is a rose-tinted source, it is Rawat seen through the eyes of his friends and followers. Surely we can agree on that? If Cagan says his daughter is called Premlata, I have no reason to doubt that. If Cagan says Rawat was in London in 1972, I have likewise no reason to doubt that. But where it shines through in the text that Cagan interviewed people who absolutely revere Rawat, and who were eager to portray Rawat to Cagan in the best possible light, then we would be wise to treat Cagan with a certain amount of caution. This is similar to how we treat sources under WP:SELFPUB, and the guidelines stated there would stand us in good stead. --JN466 15:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Jayen, WP:V also is a notability filter: when no reliable sources MENTION the names of Rawat's children it is safe to assume the outside world (that is: those who are neither Rawat-minded nor former followers) hasn't taken interest in their names. So, don't bother the Wikipedia public with these all in all rather irrelevant trivia. The name(s) Rawat gave to his bride were noted in reliable sources, so it is safe to assume the fact is above the notability threshold. As it happens, it works for me: I think the names of the children unimportant, but was interested to learn about Rawat's appreciation of his wife in front of his followers. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC) I would have viewed these ostensible BLP and notability concerns with more charity if they had been put forward at any point during the past two or three years that the article contained this information. Even now, what has been deleted several times is not the names – such a deletion would have been consistent with a good-faith BLP or notability concern – but the Cagan source behind them. I find all this dissembling rather unbecoming. JN466 16:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Whether or not I voiced the concern before is immaterial, and focussing on such irrelevant side-aspect doesn't drive this discussion in a useful direction. I do think the names of the children should go, unless they're mentioned in a reliable source. In other words: we shouldn't keep the cite tag up longer than necessary here I believe. If you want to keep the names in, go find a usable source: that would be time better spent than replying to this here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC) A reliable source is really not what is missing here. If you like, we can start another RfC on Cagan (I think this was the last), asking whether a celebrity biographer with multiple no. 1 New York Times best-sellers can be relied upon to get the name of her subject's children right. Or we could ask the question at RS/N. And as you well know, notability, at least in its WP sense, determines who we have an article about; it does not determine who we mention in an article. --JN466 17:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC) I'd like a mediator to step in at this point, in order not to get carried away, neither in irrelevant minutiae, neither in revamping discussions that already have been concluded at least once. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC) JN – I am not missing the point – I’m simply not accepting the position you are proposing that we should take, and the contra-position I have taken is based entirely on WP:V. Now please could you answer the following three questions so that there is no chance of any misunderstanding: Is P.I.P selfpublished ? If P.I.P is selfpublished, who is the publisher ? If P.I.P is not selfpublished, does its publisher have a reputation as is required by WP:V ? --Nik Wright2 (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC) You are missing the point. Of course PIP is not self-published. It would have to be published by Cagan to be self-published. However, your assertion that WP:V asks that the "publisher have a reputation" is simply untrue. WP:V does not say that. What WP:V does say is, "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." WP:RS, to which the reader is directed by WP:V for further detail, says, "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. How reliable a source is depends on context." Now, Cagan is an established and reputable celebrity biographer, who has been considered a trustworthy source by several major publishers. She has a reputation in relation to the subject at hand, celebrity biographies. We know that she employed a fact checker for her book on Rawat. This is the sort of thing that RS means when it speaks of a "reliable publication process". However, the author is not everything; the publisher impacts the reliability of a source as well. In this case, the publisher militates against the book. Because of the publisher's links to Rawat, which makes it not fully "third-party", and the concomitant generally rose-tinted slant of the book, I propose treating it as we would treat a self-published source used about itself. This is actually a very severe restriction. There is another dimension to consider as well, i.e. WP:NPOV. This requires us to present views in proportion to their published prominence. Cagan is a notable biographer. Her book on Rawat appears to have sold well. Colombo, one of the most highly honoured European politicians, has lent its name to endorse it. Clearly, Cagan represents a significant published POV. By suppressing Cagan, as you and others are advocating, we arguably fail NPOV. And by the way, if we can bring ourselves to – cautiously – cite sources like Bob Larson, a fundamentalist Christian televangelist peddling copyrighted "demon tests" on the Internet and selling telephone exorcisms, who comments on Rawat being an anti-Christ, then it strikes me as hypocritical to reject Cagan, who is arguably far more mainstream than Larson, out of hand. You may also want to read one of the previous RfCs on Cagan. I believe jpgordon and Jayjg were arbitrators at the time. They commented on the issue of new publishers. Cheers, JN466 21:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC) All of the points you bring up have been discussed over and over in the past and rejected by consensus concerning PIP. It would make things easier if you answered Nik's questions with yes or no answers. I also don't see anyone here as "suppressing Cagan," as you said. We've been having reasonable, focused, civil discussions and you seem to be veering off the subject, especially when you complain about Larson which is a source we're not discussing right now. Please stick to the basic points which are left to discuss because the points you bring up in your post above had already been addressed in the past and above. Please don't jump the gun here and take the Cagan thing outside to request comment. We have some procedures here and I believe consensus must be reached before anyone does that. Thank you. Sylviecyn (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC) (outdent)JN at the top of this page you wrote: “To my mind Cagan's always been a WP:SELFPUB much like a communist state-published biography of Lenin, or an official biography of Mao, or an authorised biography of some Hollywood great, etc.” And in your most recent reply to me you write “Of course PIP is not self-published. It would have to be published by Cagan to be self-published.”- to clarify, is what you mean, that P.I.P should be treated as selfpublished, even though it is not selfpublished ? Clearly there are no WP rules or guidance that cover such a proposal and as a novel approach editors may well want to proceed with caution. There is a source of apparent further confusion in your reply to me when you write “However, your assertion that WP:V asks that the "publisher have a reputation" is simply untrue. WP:V does not say that. What WP:V does say is, "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." - how is it that this doesn’t require sources to be third party publishers which have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy ? WP:V as read in common English meaning is wholly explicit – a source must have a publisher with a reputation, and that reputation must be for fact-checking and accuracy. Applied to P.I.P, the publisher is Mighty River Press and as a one book publisher with no other corporate or professional history to draw on MRP must fail under WP:V. What other logical conclusion can we come to ? Re: NPOV. If we accept that P.I.P is representative of a notable POV, then it can’t be used as a source for non controversial details because logically we would a priori have accepted it to be ‘tainted’. If the material contained in P.I.P is to be used as representative of a POV, then that POV needs to be explicitly dealt with – the recent Arbitration dealt with this point specifically, we can’t just throw every available POV into the mix and achieve a convenient synthesis. Re: Colombo. I’m not sure what your point is, but I doubt anyone would want an endorsement on this basis – [18] Re: Larson. The fact that Larson (as an author not a publisher) believes all sorts of things I regard as crazy, does not alter the standing of a book he authored and which was published by a publisher which meets the test of WP:V. Cagan may believe in equal amounts of (from my perspective) craziness, but that would not be a problem – the problem would remain the publisher. Re: Cagan’s reputation as a ‘celebrity biographer’ – what she has done in the past is co-authored autobiographies, which is a rather incongrous basis for a reputation. But if we accept she has a track record, then ideed if the authorship of P.I.P was plainly stated as being "Prem Rawat with Andrea Cagan", and we were to consider Rawat a ‘celebrity’, then there would be some merit in considering Cagan’s reputation. As it is we are dealing with a number of articles which are concerned not with celebrity but with religion, belief, philosophy, the legal status of non profit organisations and organisational history, none of which Cagan has a reputation for dealing with. Cagan’s work is indeed journalistic, but P.I.P lacks journalistic authority because there is no identifiable editorial responsibility as would be the case with a newspaper or magazine, or with an established book publisher. Cagan’s authorial reputation can not carry P.I.P to higher standard than its publisher provides for. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC) What a crazy dance! This is getting even worse than I had anticipated. So now we need a cite for the four children, after (with no consensus reached) dismissing the only biography. You needed not wait for me for this result. Still reminds me of a show trial, where the laws are bent for political reasons, or rather a tea-party with the Mad Hatter, the March Hare and the Dormouse. A lot has been said, and I feel like backing down a while, until the presence of some mediators may perhaps raise the chances for a little more common sense, or at least something resembling consensus. I want no part in this farce, and I begin to envy Momento and Rumiton, Terry and Zanthorp and all the others, I only feel sorry for leaving JN alone in this inglorious situation. I will contribute, when I see a chance to make a difference and not get clobbered over with bossiness and dogmatism. Please don't take my silence as acceptance or approval. I beg your pardon.--Rainer P. (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Let's keep calm about this. WP:BLP requires that we use reliable sources and WP:V sets out a criteria for establishing what's reliable. We went through an analysis of PIP and found it did not meet the standard. The burden is on those wishing to use a source to establish its reliability. It's my impression that those who wish to use the book as a source are the ones who are seeking to "bend the laws". As for the Rawat children, there are several important aspects there. They are not independently notable and BLP suggests we shouldn't name them at all. So that leaves the bare fact of their number as the only significant detail. Is that such a disputed fact that we need an explicit source? I don't think anyone doubts Rawat has four children, and I don't see anyone insisting on a source for that information. This is a tiny detail and think we shouldn't get hung up on it. We have plenty of other topics on our agenda. Unless someone wants to keep arguing about the number of Rawat's children I suggest we move on.   Will Beback  talk  21:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Geaves is next on the list - do we want to have a pre discussion about how we manage dealing with Geaves ? --Nik Wright2 (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Hang on. There may be other issues with PIP besides the children.   Will Beback  talk  22:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC) I agree, based on WP rules, it does seem that to include Cagan would be bending the rules, not the other way around. The content of the book is secondary to the fact that it simply isn't a good source to begin with. There's been no dance, and no political bending at all that I can see. I don't think a source is necessary for the number of children either. If it comes up as a problem later, I'm sure there's a source out there somewhere that can be found. On a related note, I am getting a little concerned that every time the "pro-Rawat camp" (for lack of a better term) don't get their way, they all quit, I guess they think that will give them plausible deniability later? (although to be fair, I don't know all their motives, it's possible Momento totally agrees that Cagan should be out!) The basic questions have been asked several times, and neither Jayen nor Rainer have answered them, instead choosing to argue about other aspects. We've given them more than enough time, looks like we have our consensus afterall then...including those that disagree. -- Maelefique (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Per Will's expression of caution, I've struck through my comment above - though editors may want to give some thought to what the next steps should be while we address any remaining P.I.P issues.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 07:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Cagan 2 The next use of Cagan that was deleted refers to the school Rawat attended. The book contains copious detail and vignettes from his school years (which we probably need not go into in the article) as well as a photograph showing him aged 12 in his school uniform. I suggest that Cagan is fine to cite as a source for his having visited St Joseph's Academy in Dehradun. Any objections? --JN466 19:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC) We have an unimpeached source for that: Current Biography Yearbook 1974. That fact is also in Mangalwadi.   Will Beback  talk  19:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Larson is also impeached, yet we cite him for stuff where he is correct. Don't be so inflexible. --JN466 19:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Who mentioned Larson? Are you saying that CBY isn't a sufficient source?   Will Beback  talk  20:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC) All Moritz says, as far as I can see at least, is "I went home [from St Joseph's Academy in Dehra Dun] and everyone was weeping", quoting Rawat himself. If it doesn't say explicitly that he attended school there, then Cagan is the better cite. Geaves (2006b) is available as well, but has far less detail. --JN466 20:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Mangalwadi says "He had his schooling at St. Joseph's Academy, Dehra Dun.". Is this disputed? There are also newspaper accounts that mention him going to school at St. Joseph's, including one that quotes the headmaster concerning the young guru's absences from school.   Will Beback  talk  20:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Mangalwadi is the better source then compared to CBY. --JN466 21:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC) That's fine. This is off the immediate topic, but we really ought to mention that he dropped out of the 9th grade.   Will Beback  talk  21:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Cagan 3 The following text was deleted: In October 1971, Rawat returned to India for the Hans Jayanti, an annual festival celebrating his father's birthday.<ref>Galanter (1999), p. 20</ref><ref name=Cagan171>Cagan (2007), page 171</ref> Several hundred Western disciples joined him.<ref name=Cagan171 /> Rawat revisited London in February 1972.<ref>Cagan (2007), page 173</ref> Over the next few months he spoke in Europe and Africa, and at forty-five venues in North America, then made quick trips to Japan and Australia, before returning to the US.<ref>Cagan (2007), pp. 176–180</ref> In my view, its absence does not make the article better; it helps to put some of the following in context (residences on several continents, first Western disciples, reference to the 1972 Hans Jayanti, etc. JN466 19:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Galanter is a good source, so whatever is in there could be added. Here are some other sources for his early travels: In late 1969 Maharaji sent a representative to London to found the mission’s first Western ashram. The mission grew slowly until 1971, when the “boy guru” traveled to England, Canada, and the United States. In his many appearances, Maharaji taught a simple message of universal love, peace, and devotion to himself as “Satguru” (literally, teacher of truth), this era’s divine incarnation. Maharaji’s siblings and mother were also accorded exalted spiritual status and called “the divine family.” [..] During the early and mid-1970s, thousands ofWesterners received “knowledge” and set up ashrams— intentional spiritual communities—in major cities. DLM was incorporated in the United States in Denver in 1972 and soon was holding festivals in both the United States and India that regularly attracted thousands of seekers. — Phillip Charles Lucas, "Divine Light Mission" in Contemporary American Religion, pp 189-190 In 1969 the first Western premies arrived at the Divine Light ashram at Prem Nagar, on the banks of the Ganges, and in October of that year the first of Maharaj Ji's mahatmas, Guru Charnanand, was sent westward, to London, where he supervised the establishment of a Divine Light ashram. Among those who took knowledge from Mahatma Guru Charnanand at that time was Charles Cameron, a graduate in theology from Oxford University. [..] The DLM also provides him with expensive residences in London, Los Angeles, Old Westbury (New York), and several Indian cities. — CBY Initially, the followers of Prem Rawat's teachings in the UK established Divine Light Mission in 1971, shortly after his first arrival in the west at the age of 13.3 There had been a presence in the UK since 1969, located in a basement flat in West Kensington and then in a semi-detached house in Golders Green, North London. This had come about as a result of four young British members of the counter-culture, taking the 'hippy trail' to India in 1968 discovering the young Prem Rawat and his teachings and requesting that a 'mahatma' be sent to London who could promote the message and show interested individuals the four techniques known as 'knowledge'. [..] Prem Rawat's journey from India in 1971 has to be seen as pivotal, as it was a break from the past and a step into independence; a beginning of his own work as opposed to continuing his father's activities in India. [..] In Prem Rawat's case this journey from Delhi to London on Air India resulted in a rapid exchange of religious and cultural baggage - a movement of tradition and ideas much faster than could be conveyed along the old silk road or by Guru Nanak's symbolic journeys to the four cardinal points of the compass, or even by Vivekananda in the nineteenth century. [..] Several months later in 1971, a chartered Air India Boeing 747 would transport over 300 western seekers back to India to stay in Prem Rawat's ashrams in Delhi and Hardiwar. — Geaves, 2006. Globalisation, charisma, innovation, and tradition: Yet Balyogeshwar Sri Sant Ji Maharaj fills that description exactly. And on top of it, he claims to have three million followers around the world, including 2,000 mahatmas in India who call him master. In fact, he is now seeking more adherents on a threemonth international tour which began in Hollywood and'is taking him to New York, Washington, Canada and South Africa before winding up with a large rally in London on Nov. 5. — Teen-Age Guru...Maharaj Looks for Followers World Tour, By PETER GREENBERG Newsweek Feature Service, Frday, September 1, 1971 News Journal, Mansfield Etc. Let's report what we can find in reliable sources, fo which there are no lack.   Will Beback  talk  20:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Given that it seems the information in Cagan wasn't wrong, I would have much preferred if you had looked for alternative sources first and presented them here, before removing long-standing content. JN466 20:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC) PIP contains a mix of correct and incorrect information, and so it's better to use reliable sources instead. The subject's early travels are well-decribed.   Will Beback  talk  20:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC) BTW, who added "Galanter (1999), p. 20", as seen in the text at the top of this page? I'm looking at that source tand there's no mention of Rawat on that page. Could it be page 22 instead?   Will Beback  talk  20:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC) The Galanter reference was previously at the end of a subclause explaining what the 1972 Hans Jayanti was (i.e. a celebration commemorating Rawat's father's birthday). When I moved the explanation to the 1971 sentence, I moved the reference along with it; but I did not check it. As the text currently stands, we need to explain this again; the 1972 sentence is the first to mention a "Hans Jayanti" and the reader won't know what it is. Thanks for getting on with the work on this. --JN466 21:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the clarification. I put it back where it was and adjusted the page number.   Will Beback  talk  21:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Great. I adjusted the timeline a bit, so the American comments don't come just after he's gone back to India. JN466 21:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC) That flows much better.   Will Beback  talk  21:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC) When was it agreed upon to take Cagan on a case by case basis? I never agreed to that, and furthermore, why are you guys editing the article again? I never agreed to that either. Can we put the pause button on Cagan and editing the article until we clear up the issues of civility, no personal attacks, and whether or not Cagan is to be allowed in the article at all? It seems particularly strange to me that the editors who want to use Cagan need to have another reliable source to back up the veracity and validity of Cagan, when in actuality, it's not a reliable source. Sylviecyn (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC) The "case by case basis" was the suggestion of Sunray, our moderator/mediator. So far it's working fine. While we've written 25,000 words about PIP this month on top of the 100,000 we wrote on the topic last year, it will be worthwhile if working through the process settles lingering disputes. Civility is a requirement and personal attacks are not allowed. We don't need to make new agreeemnts on those- they are already Wikipedia policy.   Will Beback  talk  23:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC) I know that Sunray recommended it and I disagreed with Sunray's suggestion. Therefore, my question is (and I'd appreciate a direct answer): When did the editors here reach concensus on taking up Sunray's suggestion to go on a case by case basic for using PIP? I don't agree with that at all, or with your characterization that "so far it's working fine." I don't see it working fine at all. Why is PIP not being rejected out of hand as a source when it's been logically and methodically proven over and over again not to be a reliable source based on Wikipedia guidelines and policies? I don't see the point of trying to "fit PIP" into the article by finding sources to back *it* up. It makes absolutely no sense. Either a source is reliable or it's not. PIP is not. I'm puzzled by this turn of events. Also, I thought that we had agreed that editors would not be making edits to the articles and one of the mediators would be doing that editing once consensus was reached on edits as we did when Steve was our mediator last year. What happened to that? How come you unlocked the article without consensus, Will? Sylviecyn (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC) First, consensus doesn't mean unanimity. Second, I don't think we've been looking for sources that back up PIP. Rather, we've been finding more reliable sources to use instead of PIP. My view has long been that the book is too unreliable and skewed to use alone, and unnecessary if there are other sources. Regarding the mediation, it's on hold while we see if this project structure will work instead. The article is unprotected because articles are only protected to halt vandalism or edit warring, and those are no longer problems. If there are specific changes unrelated to the use of Cagan as a source then those are perhaps best discussed on the article talk pages. I don't think we've really made any significant changes to the article, but others may have a different view.   Will Beback  talk  19:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC) I know what consensus means. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC) A question for Sunray - why did you not suggest as one of the options for dealing with Cagan's book a simple rejection of the book as a reliable source? Other editors have put forward a strong case, grounded in Wikipedia policies, for such a rejection. These are that the publisher has no reputation for fact-checking, and that the book clearly isn't self-published by Rawat. In addition, serious inaccuracies and omissions in the book have been identified by others here, Cagan did not interview Rawat, and made no attempt as far as I know to interview any former followers who were close to the subject. Could you please give your reasons for not suggesting, or even adjudicating, that the book should be rejected as a source for the article? Thanks. --John Brauns (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC) I see part of my role as moderator as determining when there is consensus. When I made my suggestions, there appeared to be no consensus regarding Cagan as a reliable source. It is not up to me to rule one way or the other as long as policies are being validly applied. Good points were being made on both sides of the argument. Sunray (talk) 06:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I'd have to agree with Sunray here. I've been quietly observing discussions here, and both "sides" of the debate have made valid points, but it's not our role as moderators to choose between options, it's our role to determine whether a matter has consensus, or does not have consensus, and there is no consensus here. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 06:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Well you both dodged John's question. What John was asking you -- and he can correct me if I'm wrong -- is why did Sunray only provide the one option, pertaining to using the Cagan source on a case by case senario and not set forth the other -- rejecting Cagan as a source out of hand because it's already been proven not to be a reliable source. Why isn't it possible to do that if by Wikipedia standards, the PIP book clearly does not meet RS standards? This is a BLP, so it only makes sense that only the best reliable sources be used as per the ARBCOM2 finding.(Amended comment) Sylviecyn (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC) It does seem that not all project participants had appreciated the effect of moving from Mediation to Project, and in retrospect perhaps this could have been more fully discussed to ensure everyone understood what the implications were. Hopefully we are all now on the same page and having the role of Moderators specified will no doubt also help. One thing that we do need to be explicit about is what the impact of there being ‘no consensus’ means when dealing with sources; my understanding is that “if there is no consensus that a source meets the standards of WP:V, WP:RS etc, that the source is not usable and axiomatically any current use of the source in WP articles should be removed”. Of course, as with P.I.P/Cagan, that doesn’t impede us from discussing limited use for exceptional purposes, but that, that discussion is on the basis of a zero plus process, not a whittling down of existing inappropriate usage. I would welcome Sunray’s and Steve’s comments on this specific point.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Sunray & Steve, thanks for your responses. As I do not think that pro-PIP editors did give any 'valid points', based on Wikipedia guidelines, could you summarise in your own words what those points were and which Wikipedia guidelines support those points, please? I'm genuinely baffled as to why PIP is still being considered as a reliable source even for basic biographical information. --John Brauns (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Cagan 3.25 Creating my own little subsection, the above one is too hard to navigate. Will reply fully in a sec. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 11:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Editing from an iPod Nano?   Will Beback  talk  12:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC) At the time, I was using my iPhone. :) Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 07:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Responding to Nik above, I see a bit of a dilemma. Both sides in this debate have given reasoned arguments, and neither of us are able to determine a clear consensus on the matter. Generally, when consensus cannot be determined, the result is the status quo (in AFDs, generally keep, RFAs, candidate is not promoted). The diemma here, is that generally, if a source's use is disputed and it's clear there is no consensus on it's use, then it can't be used, but that covers sources that aren't already used in articles. These sources are alrady being used. Implementing the same principle, despite no consensus, would favor those who oppose the use of the source. That's the dilemma I see here. I'll have to discuss with Sunray and see if we can come up with a workable solution. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 11:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC) 100% consensus isn't required or possible on every topic. Rather than spending effort counting !votes I suggest we aim towards representing the NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  12:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Indeed, an absolute majority isn't required to deem that something has consensus, however we need to be able to determine that there is at least a rough consensus on a matter. We do have the role to determine whether or not there is consensus on a matter, and what the consensus is. In my opinion here, consensus is almost split down the middle, so it's rather hard for us to determine a clear consensus. Perhaps we should discuss Ron Geaves, which is in a section below, and leave this for the time being? Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 07:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Steve, I'd like to leave aside the little problem of violating WP policy by allowing a source that cannot be allowed based on WP guidelines for a moment, and ask how you get to the conclusion that "consensus is almost split down the middle"? By my count, Will, Sylvie, John B., Francis, Nik and Myself are opposed to this source, while Jayen, Rainer, and *possibly* (depending on how you interpret his statement) Savlonn are in favour. that makes 6-3 opposed. Is that really down the middle?!? How about for every involved editor in favour, there are 2 that are opposed? That's what the numbers show. And if somehow that seems a little middle-ground-like for you still (and I must admit to being stumped how that could be), I would also like to read your answer to John Brauns' question that seemed to have been missed, "As I do not think that pro-PIP editors did give any 'valid points', based on Wikipedia guidelines, could you summarise in your own words what those points were and which Wikipedia guidelines support those points, please?" Also, not trying to beat a dead horse here, but I don't see how moving on to another source is helpful in any way. I would like to finally solve an issue around here for once. -- Maelefique (talk) 06:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC) I am happy to put Cagan aside for the time being. However, I would like to leave editors with a few thoughts about Cagan, and her potential usefulness: (1) Sylviecyn mentioned the DECA project. Basically, a Boeing 707 was bought for Rawat's use in 1979, and he flew it himself on his journeys around the globe. The Boeing had extensive work done on it, which took months to complete. It is fairly uncommon for people to have Boeing 707s and have them altered to suit their requirements; the article currently does not mention the Boeing at all. I believe this is due to a lack of useful sources commenting upon this (cf. User_talk:Steven_Zhang/Mediation/Prem_Rawat/Proposal7#Jets. All the preceding information is available in Cagan. (2) We currently don't mention the press campaign Satpal carried on against Prem Rawat in India. Satpal had a picture of Rawat and his wife kissing published in Indian newspapers. To get this, you have to understand that kissing was even banned in Indian motion pictures at the time: it was considered pornographic, and never engaged in in public. While I doubt we'll be able to lay our hands on Indian papers from the 1970s, Cagan covers the controversy. (3) As Duly Noted's samples illustrate, and we have already seen above, there is additional detail on Rawat's family origins in Cagan. There can be no concern of pro-Rawat "spin" in instances such as these, because the same facts are also featured in the Rawat histories on anti-Rawat websites. And I am confident that even though Cagan may be written in an apologetic style, the bare facts surrounding such issues can be cited in such a way that neutrality is safeguarded. --JN466 15:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC) While on the one hand I wouldn't necessarily object to these things being included in our article, the fact remains that whatever is inside the book is irrelevant if we cannot prove that the book itself (whatever its contents may be!) is RS, and I think we have shown/can all agree, that it doesn't meet those requirements. -- Maelefique (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Cagan 3.5 Are there any other cases where editors think we should be using PIP/Cagan as a source? If not we should move on to the next item on our list.   Will Beback  talk  06:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Cagan 4 The next bit cited to Cagan was this: After the Malibu home was damaged by fire, Rawat lived in [[Miami Beach, Florida]] with his wife and three children for several years, and DLM headquarters relocated there.<ref name="Cagan219220" /> Prem Rawat visited India again in October 1980 after an absence of five years, and spoke to over 38,000 people in Delhi. He also toured South America and Europe that year.<ref name="Cagan">Cagan (2007), p. 229</ref> which has now been shortened to the following: Rawat lived in [[Miami Beach, Florida]] with his wife and three children for several years, and DLM headquarters relocated there.{{Citation needed|date=September 2009}} The family, which grew to four children, later moved back to Malibu.<ref name="Geaves2006a" /> Do we have alternative sources for this content? I had something in mind that there was a newspaper article on the fire, but I may be mistaken. --JN466 20:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC) There are sources for Malibu fires, but none that assert the house was damaged. There are two newspaper articles about Rawat going to Miami in 1977, but that was for a short visit. There's a 1985 article that says, " Until the spring of 1984, the one-time guru was seldom at his mansion, called Anacapa View Estates, off Trancas Canyon 600 feet above Pacific Coast Highway. He and his family visited there a few times a year but they also spent time in Miami and abroad. Then Maharaji dropped his ties with the Divine Light organization and settled full time at the Malibu estate, Gross said."   Will Beback  talk  20:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Cagan says the fire was in October 1978, and that while Rawat's house did not catch fire, the houses of some of his neighbours did. His house was filled with soot, and the surrounding trees and grass were gone. There are contemporary news reports of such a fire in Malibu, and the effects described by Cagan are the normal effects of a brushfire. Cagan is quoting Rawat's wife Marolyn and Judy Osborne, both of whom recalled these events to Cagan. JN466 21:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Here is a contemporary news article in the St Petersburg Times, based on an Associated Press report. Titled "Brushfires wreck at least 60 homes in S. California", it says, "One reporter counted at least 50 homes in flames or in charred ruins as he drove along busy Pacific Coast Highway north of Malibu." It's from Oct. 24 1978. Rawat's house is off the Pacific Coast Highway to the northwest of Malibu. --JN466 21:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC) One of the troubles with PIP is that it strings together events and motives in ways that don't appear elsewhere. While I can't find the source now, I recall reading that Rawat moved to Miami for better access to international flights rather than because there was soot on the walls of his house. Moving an entire organization just because a house needed painting would be odd.   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I don't see Cagan, or our prior article text for that matter, asserting that an entire organization was moved because of the fire. Both Cagan and the old article text say that Rawat and his family moved after the fire, nothing more. (The statement that the organization moved is unsourced now and was unsourced before.) What we do have though is two named witnesses cited by a well-known biographer saying that Rawat's family moved to Miami after the fire, with ample corroboration of the described circumstances from contemporary third-party sources. At this point, I have no sympathy for the argument that we are protecting encyclopedic integrity by deleting any reference to the fire and its precipitating the family's move to Miami. I propose we reinsert that subclause. JN466 21:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Your other point, that PIP "strings together events and motives in ways that don't appear elsewhere", bears thinking about. Isn't this what a reader expects from any biography, especially the first one to draw on extensive interviews of confidants, staff, students and family of its subject? The promise of new insights and fresh perspectives is the key marketing argument for all biographies; it's their unique selling point. This in itself does not make a good argument against the source, rather the contrary. --JN466 22:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC) If the move wasn't due to the fire, then why would we mention it?   Will Beback  talk  22:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I see that, according to Galanter, Rawat moved his HQ from Denver to Miami.[19] That's an unimpeached sources so I suggest we use it instead. (Less usefully, Melton says that Maharaj Ji moved to Miami, according to Adherents.com.[20])   Will Beback  talk  22:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC) The stuff about the fire is sheer trivia, it may well be what a reader of 'celebrity biography' wants to read but it isn't relevant to an Encyclopaedia article about an individual whose notability arises from his 'leadership' of a 'movement'. The move to Miami is relevant and Galanter is a sound source for that. The newspaper quote of Gross (who was both Rawat's personal lawyer and a DLM/Elan Vital official) can hardly be taken as an independent verification of Cagan, other than that Cagan concurs with the 'party line'. "Then Maharaji dropped his ties with the Divine Light organization and settled full time at the Malibu estate, Gross said." is a pretty telling bit of spin based on the slight of hand that DLM changed its name to Elan Vital.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 07:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC) No one here argued that Gross was corroborating Cagan. More to the point, Gross is talking about Rawat returning to Malibu in spring 1984, Cagan is talking about him leaving in 1978. JN466 16:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC) I can remember a few months ago editors fought tooth and nail to retain a mention of the helipad controversy and Rawat's agreement with the Malibu fire services to house emergency water storage for the Los Angeles County Fire Department on his estate. I consider the fact that the subject and his family had to escape a major and widely reported brushfire somewhat more important than the fact that there is now a water tank installed on the premises, so I can't follow the logic put forward here. Instead, the impression I am gaining from this conversation is that my fellow editors are dissembling and bending their arguments to fit the a-priori goal of not citing Cagan. The mention of the fire was in the article for years, no one ever complained about it. --JN466 16:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC) <outdent>The fire was quite incidental to Rawat's move to Miami Beach and not the reason he moved. He lived in the Malibu home after the fire. Rawat never took any commercial flights out of Miami International Airport (or anywhere else) because private jets were always chartered for his travel both within the U.S. and abroad. Rawat moved to Miami Beach because of the DECA project which was getting underway by mid-to-late 1978, and for a while Miami Beach Convention Center was a place where he held programs, in addition to Kissimmee, Florida where he held two very large outdoor Hans Jayanti programs in early November in both 1978 and 1979. The reason for being close to Miami International Airport was because it was a convenient place to rent a hangar in order to keep the B707 that was acquired for reconfiguration. It was also a place where the FAA was readily available to sign-off on everything done to the jet in the way of reconfiguration inside and outside the aircraft. Plus, it was much cheaper to accomplish DECA aims in Miami which was a depressed area at the time, rather than in the Malibu/Los Angeles area which was significantly more expensive. The reason DLM moved to Miami Beach was to support the DECA project, but renaming DLM to Elan Vital didn't happen until 1983, long after the DECA B707 project was completed. Rawat most definitely did not "remove the Hindu trappings" in 1980, because he was still dancing on stages at live events in Krishna costumes and various other Hindu regalia in 1980 and 1981. It's true that many premies moved to the Miami area after they learned Rawat would be living there most of the time, but many were asked to move to Miami to work on the B707 at DECA. Ashram premies were transferred from ashrams around the world to work at DECA. I was one of of the first of those premies until mid-1979 when large numbers of ashramees were transferred to Miami. The story about the Malibu fire is quite insignificant, but obviously it was frightening for Mrs. Rawat and Judy Osbourne who were at the home during the fire, but hardly worth a mention in the article. One wonders, why Cagan would even mention the Malibu fire because it was a mere blip on the radar screen of what was going on in the movement at that time, which was DECA -- that was Rawat's main focus for two years. There won't be any sources to back up my anecdotal information, mainly because information about the DECA project was held very close to the vest, even from the premie population. Those uninvolved directly in the DECA project didn't know much about DECA until later in 1979. Hope this helps sort out Cagan's very inaccurate depiction of those times. Sylviecyn (talk) Cagan says there was a fire in Malibu in October 78, and while the house was being repaired, Rawat first stayed for a few days with his brother and then went to live in Miami (where we know he ended up staying for most of the next five years or so). Please explain what exactly is wrong about that. Thanks. JN466 16:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC) The DECA project began in spring 1979, and you were one of the first people there, at the beginning of it, correct? --JN466 17:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Jayen. You have accused other editors of dissemblement - i.e the construction of deliberate lies. Can you explain why you believe you are are entitled to work outside of WP:CIVIL ? --Nik Wright2 (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Hearing no objection to Galanter, I've put that it in as a source. The text now reads: Rawat moved his family and the DLM headquarters to Miami Beach, Florida.[39] The family, which grew to four children, moved back to Malibu in 1984.[39] Galanter also describes Rawat's activities in Miami, but I didn't want to make any significant changes.   Will Beback  talk  23:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC) I don't consider the situation about the Malibu fire resolved. However, I'll drop the topic for now as we are clearly not making progress. I'll bring it up again at some more propitious time. JN466 14:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC) As a process matter, shall we mark the Cagan/PIP thread as closed so we can move on to discussing Geaves' writings? Any objections   Will Beback  talk  19:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Please mark it "adjourned", to accurately reflect the status of discussion. --JN466 00:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Cagan 5 Article: Hans Ji Maharaj Page 11 Shri Maharaji had a daughter with his first wife, Sinduri Devi, but the legend goes that before his master, Swami Swarupanand, died, he’d spoken about Shri Maharaji having as many as four sons. Perhaps that was why he felt the need to marry again after Sinduri Devi was no longer able to bear children. In fact, his daughter, Didiji, who passed away in 2005, claimed that her mother herself had suggested that her husband take a second wife to produce a son. And so, in 1948, Shri Maharaji married a young woman named Rajeshwari Devi from the Garwhal district, which today forms the western segment of the newly established state of Uttaranchal. This ancient ancestry shows up in the physical appearances of various family members. While Shri Maharaji was tall and lanky, his new wife and her son Prem had shorter, broader builds with faces reminiscent of Tibetans to the north. The genetic explanation for this could be that Garwhal had been a part of the Nepalese kingdom as late as the 1800s, and the Nepalese are a mix between Indians and Tibetans. In the traditional Indian fashion of that time, Shri Maharaji remained married to his first wife after he married the second, and both wives lived with him in the house. As custom dictated, the first wife was called Badhi Mataji (Older Mother), while the younger one was called Chottee Mataji (Younger Mother). Even- tually, the younger one was known simply as Mataji. Didiji re- marked, “Both the mothers lived together, and there was great affection between them.” A longtime member of Shri Maharaji’s traveling staff commented, “It was not unusual in India at that time for a man to have two wives at the same time and for them to live under the same roof. But it was rarely suggested by the first wife.” Cagan 6 Article: Hans Ji Maharaj and Prem Rawat Page 5 The uncommonly splendid view of the Himalayas was to be- come a familiar sight during Prem’s thirteen years in Dehradun, where the family lived in rented homes until 1960. Finally, they moved into a large house on 13 Municipal Road, a sprawling estate they purchased from a queen whose husband, Patiala Maharaj, had been the king of a small state, now a part of the new India. The large old mansion, sitting on abundant acreage, was run- down, which made it affordable. Mataji had secretly saved money over the years, and, combined with loans from generous friends, there was just enough to buy the house, restore it, and redecorate it. The property eventually became a haven for multitudes of guests and students to visit from all over the world. Cagan 7 Article: Hans Ji Maharaj Page 10 He made it abundantly clear that the prevailing mantras (short religious syllables or poems that people would repeat), rituals, yoga exercises, prayers, and chanting of verses from holy books would not help anyone attain inner transformation. But this claim did not sit well with the traditional Hindu establishment in his part of India, the very heartland of Hinduism. In ancient times, King Rama had established a glorious kingdom there, magnificently described in the Ramayana, the great epic by Tulsidas, a book Shri Maharaji often quoted. The original Ra­ mayana was much older, but Tulsidas, a 1600s sant, rewrote the story. And that’s why Shri Maharaji loved to explain the underlying meaning of the words in Tulsidas’s Ramayana, while he maintained that Hindu priests got lost in literal beliefs. Despite years of criticism and, at times, even organized opposition, Shri Maharaji remained true to his belief that each human being could realize truth and inner contentment, no matter their caste, religion, gender, or life circumstance. He took this message from the hillside regions in Punjab to Delhi and northern India all the way to Mumbai in the south and Patna in the east. Slowly, over three decades, his following grew, and at the time of Prem’s birth, his students were starting to organize themselves with several centers, a small office in Delhi, and a monthly magazine containing excerpts from his addresses. --Duly Noted (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC) I don't know who has added these quotes from PIP, or what their purpose is, but if information about Rawat's background life is not notable then it's not notable and shouldn't be included in the Rawat Wikipedia articles. --John Brauns (talk) 06:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC) I don't know why it's not attributed, but Cagan 5,6,7 were all created by Duly Noted (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC) as near as I can tell. (I've fixed it now I think) Although, that still leaves me in the dark as to what that post is all about anyway. -- Maelefique (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC) It's not clear what the purpsoe of all this material is. There's no reason to think that PIP is any more reliable about Han Ji than about other topics. We have adequate sources for that article. Duly Noted hasn't introduced himself, and I'm include to ignore this long posting.   Will Beback  talk  07:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC) And an introduction would go a long way... or I'm gonna have to start chanting "AGF, AGF..." all over again... -- Maelefique (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Indeed Duly Noted needs to give a clear introduction as well as providing a WP:User page to allow other Project members the oportunity to make contact, pose questions etc, that are not specific to the Project pages but which may arise in discussion and editing. As to the Cagan 5.6.7 now above - I propose that a moderator take these out of the numbering system which we already have, as that conforms to the existing usage debate, which is very different from the additional use of P.I.P which Duly Noted now wants to commence. I certainly didn't agree to a process of reviewing every page of Cagan's book in case amongst the trivia something might be applicable to a Project article. In any case Duly Noted's three excerpts are in the main trivia, and where there is some substance the claims are unsupported by any alternate sources. Given that anything pre 1975 which concerns the Rawat family, must for BLP reasons be considered potentially controversial (Prem and Satpal may have conflicting perspectives and harm may accrue to one or other from the promotion of one POV) all sourcing needs to be verifiable beyond the dubious P.I.P claims. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Process questions

I've been mostly absent during the past few days. My apologies. However, my previous suggestions don't seem to have helped much. My last suggestion was to either take Cagan on a case by case basis (i.e., depending on the information to be sourced) or to move on to another topic. It seems neither option has been adopted. Perhaps I've failed to understand the dynamics of this group. Would you be able to tell me how I might better serve you as a moderator? Sunray (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought we were going through citations one by one, starting with the names and number of children. If there are any other specific cases that we should discuss we can either do so now or move on and discuss the matter again later.   Will Beback  talk  07:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sunray, your suggestions have been helpful in that they offered something to work towards - it must be said that P.I.P/Cagan was always going to be a difficult issue, and that coupled with the fact we were dealing with a backwards process (a source currently used in places where it probably should not be) made it doubly difficult to achieve a reasoned conclusion. Now we are at a point of 'building up from zero', we can certainly go forward on a cite by cite basis. Perhaps if there is no current enthusiasm for proposals for using P.I.P we could move to the next subject, but certainly lets give everyone a chance to proceed with a case by case approach. Given that the process so far has been challenging, I've plagiarised the schema Steve Crossin set up for the earlier PR mediation, as an example of how we might use that tye of format to allow everyone to go through the assessment process and present their own versions for comparison - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nik_Wright2/draft_style_page_for_Assessment_of_Sources --Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, Will unlocked the article, without mediation consensus, and deleted all citations to Cagan, without mediation consensus, and while ignoring WP policy and guidelines on how to evaluate sources. I think the correct word is bulldozering. JN466 14:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

In terms of helping this process, I would appreciate it if you could make clear that you are in charge here, by reverting the article to the status quo ante, and then guide a policy-informed discussion of each place in the text where Cagan is used. Otherwise we are not really in mediation, but in free-for-all editing and mob rule. --JN466 14:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that the current group is dominated numerically by editors with a personal axe to grind against Rawat, i.e. SPAs with significant offsite involvement in anti-Rawat activism, I would also suggest that we should seek outside input on Cagan at a suitable noticeboard. Local consensus does not override policy. JN466 14:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Would participants be able to agree that only non-controversial changes will be made to the article and any major changes will be by consensus? Sunray (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.--Rainer P. (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

During the early stages of the mediation, we discussed a guideline for editing during the mediation. Nik came up with a proposed approach. [21] We could tweak that and apply it if need be. Sunray (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I’m entirely happy to agree that only non-controversial changes will be made to articles in the purview of the Project and that any major changes will be by consensus, and that we have an agreed process to achieve this on the lines I earlier suggested. However if we are going to go down the route of such formalisation then there needs to be a more formal approach to enforcement of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF as well as a clear process of establishing concesus that isn’t held hostage by editors who don’t get their own way, simply by their refusing to accept logical arguments. As far as WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF both Rainer P. and JN466 have personalised arguments, making claims about other editors POV and intentions. Indeed JN466 has done this immediately above this response, where not only does he impugn the intentions of those editors who acknowledge having (away from Wikipedia) a POV that is critical of some members of the Rawat family’s activities, but JN466 impugns a number of other editors who plainy have no off WP concerns with the Rawat family whatsoever.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Jayen's characterizations. First, we're not in active mediation - this is a project supervised by mediators. Second, the deletion of the PIP material came as a result of following WP policies, not ignoring them. Third, the burden of showing that a source is reliable is on those who wish to use it. We've been discussing this for three weeks, and I don't think that there has been any evidence presented of the book's reliability. The material that PIP has been used for is either controversial or trivial. It's not reliable enough for the controversial matters, and it's not needed for trivia.   Will Beback  talk  17:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Will, at AE, you said you'd forgotten there was an arbitration remedy, despite having been blocked for violating the same remedy in May. Now you have forgotten that we are in mediation. At any rate, that is what it says at the top of Talk:Prem Rawat: "this topic is in formal mediation." Your "bold" and unilateral changes reflected neither consensus nor the approach suggested by the mediator. --JN466 18:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't forget. I looked at the top of the page, which says "Wikipedia:WikiProject Prem Rawat".   Will Beback  talk  19:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe you should have looked at the top of the talk page of the article you were editing. Actually, I misquoted. What it says is, "This article, Prem Rawat, is currently the subject of formal mediation from the Mediation Committee." --JN466 19:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The last post to a mediation page was in August. At that time, Sunray wrote, "Let's put a hold on the mediation (say for one month) and move discussion to the project page." If you want to move this discussion back to the mediation page then that's a possibility. But it isn't active at present.   Will Beback  talk  19:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I was travelling at the end of August and missed that. As far as the Rawat talk page is concerned, the article is subject to formal mediation. If this is necessary to say, I would like to reinstitute formal mediation for teh topic area. If this was an experiment, it did not turn out well. JN466 19:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

While this discussion has dragged on longer than we might wish, we do seem to be making progress. We're going through PIP on a case-by-case basis, as recommended by the moderator. I'm not sure what we'd do differently on another page.   Will Beback  talk  19:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind where we discuss, and I am perfectly happy to continue here, but I want it to be clear to you and all other parties that these articles are under formal mediation, as the Rawat talk page says. --JN466 20:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems clear that there is no consensus that PIP is a reliable source to be used automatically for all aspects of Prem Rawat's life. However, I thought we were working on evaluating its use on a case-by-case basis for certain facts. The argument for this was that it is the only biography and may be needed to support certain facts. If that is not what we are doing, let's cease discussion, for now, on Cagan and move on to something else.

I would like to see some agreement on editing changes. Would participants be willing to finalize that now? Sunray (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I undertake henceforth not to make controversial changes to any article in the topic area. Should I make a change that I believed would be uncontroversial and any participant in this mediation tells me they do find the edit problematic, I will self-revert it when advised of the disagreement and work with them and the entire team here to make a version agreeable to all of us.

However, I reserve the right to revert any controversial changes that are made unilaterally without consensus, to the extent that the arbitration remedies allow, and urge all other interested parties to join me in reverting such changes. JN466 18:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify one point, there is a consensus that Cagan is not "a reliable source to be used automatically for all aspects of Rawat's life." To the best of my belief, no one present here argues the position that it is such a source that is fine to use for everything. The different positions are the categorical one that says "any use of Cagan is intolerable" vs. the differentiated one that says limited use for biological data not available elsewhere is fine, as long as it's not against the spirit of restrictions analogous to those in WP:SELFPUB. JN466 19:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you expand on your proposal for editing changes?   Will Beback  talk  18:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

How about something like the following:

Editing of article pages related to this project

1. insertion of new text or deletion of existing text, including any change in respect of references, will be discussed on the project talk page if objected to by another project member (WP:1RR).
2. Major changes will be based on draft proposals presented on the article talk page and agreed to by consensus.
3. Normally a minimum of 48 hours will be allowed for discussion on the talk page, however, participants may request an extension, if necessary.
4. Decisions will be by consensus. Note that consensus is not unanimity, however, participants will make reasonable effort to resolve or mitigate minority objections.

I've based this on Nik's proposal on the mediation page, but adapted it to the project environment and added a line on consensus. Please discuss. Sunray (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. JN466 21:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I endorse the principle, but I don't think that further editing restrictions are really helpful. We already have strict restrictions (which I occasionally forget). What are we considering "major changes"? Would deleting an unreliable source and a few sentences sourced to it be a major change? So long as we really discuss things, WP:BRD seems like a workable way of proposing changes. Regarding the last point, that's a good principle which applies to any article.   Will Beback  talk  21:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources are covered in #1. If objected to, they would be discussed here. As to defining major changes. I would say that this might be construed as anything beyond simple content addition or editing changes. Tinkering with a sentence would be minor, a new paragraph or section would likely be major. I think we should err on the side of discussion in the early stages of this project. Sunray (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I endorse these as good principles that we should all follow, but I don't want any more rules. If they're enforceable they'll tend to become cudgels, and if they're unenforceable then they're useless.   Will Beback  talk  19:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably the most significant change to the article since it was unprotected, and which isn't related to the PIP/Cagan discussion, is the addition of this paragraph: [22] I don't see any discussion of that addition, and I'm concerned that it gives too much weight to one view among many in a section that should be kept short. Also, it is derived from a source that we are scheduled to discuss next. What's the best way to deal with that edit without either interrupting the PIP/Cagan discussion, or prejudicing the upcoming Geaves disussion?   Will Beback  talk  19:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

For some reason I hadn't previously picked up on that edit; it's perhaps the most problematic of all the current uses of Geaves because the claimed attendance figures in no way match the venue sizes that Elan Vital, TPRF etc report themselves, and there are no corroborating sources for Geaves claims. I actually think this raises further doubt about Geaves in general and I'd be OK with simply adding this to the list to deal with and for now leave the edit in place - however if other editors or the moderators feel it best to remove that edit in advance of discussions, then I'm content with that, and we can discuss it as an 'in priciple question' rather than extant article text.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

In keeping with the principles that Jayen has endorsed above, perhaps the best solution would be for Jayen to self-revert that edit until after we've had a chance to discuss Geaves in general and that material in particular.   Will Beback  talk  20:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Civility

Nik raises the issue of how we talk to one another. I think it is important for project members to agree on how we will interpret the behavioral polices and guidelines. Scanning the project page, I don't think we have provided enough guidance on how members should interact. We go right into "dealing with disputes," without talking about how to avoid disputes. I would like to add a section on that. Here are a few thoughts as to what could be in that section.

Collaborative editing

Collaboration is easy when all editors agree. However, there are many different points of view and it is hard to maintain a neutral point of view on all topics. It is often easier to point to someone else's POV rather than consider one's own. When project members find themselves in disagreement, it is important to remain civil and to comment on content, not the contributor. There are times when the "content" is the other contributor. In such cases, it is helpful to stick to observable facts and I-messages (e.g., when you did X, I...). That way editors can avoid making judgments or blaming one another. The role of the moderators is to deal with process concerns and to provide guidance in a neutral manner. Personal attacks will be removed. Sunray (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed my comment in protest over mediator Sunray singling me out for using the actual *names* of editors when expressing a concern over the process here. Sunray characterized me as making as a personal attack. It was not personal attack. It's difficult to express concern over an issue if using someone's name is censored by a mediator on this project. Meanwhile all over this page personal attacks and negative characterizations by editors towards fellow editors can be found that have gone unnoticed (clever that those making them don't mention editors by names but the effect is the same as if they did mention names). There is also a personal negative comment about myself and Nik (which Nik comments about below) in Jayen's edit summary in which Jayen466 refers to a comment of mine below as "dissembling," which is essentially calling calling me a liar. Diff. Btw, I understand quite well what "I statements" are -- it's an old "psych 101" tool, and I know well the purpose of their use, but I never in my life heard of anyone making the requirement that using "I statements" precludes and prohibits the use of someone's name. For instance and just as an example: I am concerned and disturbed about Sunray's performance as mediator on this project. That's an "I statement." Sylviecyn (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have asked editors (in this very section) to not personalize their comments—to comment on content, not the contributor. What you said was an example of exactly what I am talking about. I would be happy to restore your remarks if the editors in question indicate that they take no offense. However, I wish, once more, to reiterate: All editors of this project are requested to please avoid making personal remarks about other editors. Sunray (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

See my comment above. Just because you ask someone to do something and they "disobey" you in your estimation, doesn't constitute them making a personal attck. Please pay more careful attention to the nature of the comments (without people naming other editor's names) on this page which DO constitute personal attacks. Thank you. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

These are good points, but I wonder what it would take to dissipate the antagonism and the stubbornly resistance to compromise. Duly Noted (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

DN, as I asked on your talk page, could you please explain your interest in the topic, and your previous involvement with Wikipedia? The rest of the editors here have already done so.   Will Beback  talk  01:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy thoughts, happy thoughts... AGF, AGF... Oh shoot! Did I type this out loud?...Sorry, was just trying to convince myself of a few things,...again. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 06:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have been thinking recently about the exact significance of the word should in Wiki-rules. Maybe in German it has a different sound to it, but the use of the word should in my understanding allows some figuration, it is not like a law or commandment. I understand and accept it as a guideline for editing, and when not followed, there also should be presentable reasons for that, too. So I don’t really share some editors concerns when those rules are not taken as if they were absolute and sacrosanct, and I feel no conflict when for reasons of sensible and intelligible editing those shoulds are interpreted from case to case. Might make things easier here, too. Opinions?--Rainer P. (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Lets stick to English conditionality for EN:WP SHALL we. Should is a participle of SHALL and its clear that EN:WP usage of SHOULD follows the intent of common English usage of SHALL -see 2. at [23]. WP habitually distinguishes between what is an unequivocal requirement, and what is usually desirable, by use of the categories Policy (required without exception) and Guideline ( desirable). --Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Nik. Literally it says in a header on WP:Policy and guideline: This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Not "without exception". It's a matter of consensus in the end.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You failed to acknowledge that 'normally' is hyperlinked to [24] which places the burden upon editors who wish to WP:IAR to explain why following that course would improve the encyclopaedia - that is consensus has to follow a logic - not simply accommodate positions based on WP:JDLI.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think a lot of reasonable arguments have been presented here, reducing it to "JDLI" feels deprecative, if not somewhat insulting.--Rainer P. (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't read it as insulting. I think that Nik was trying to underscore that the meaning of "should" in the sentence you quoted is much stronger than the word's normal conditional meaning. One can ignore a rule, provided that they can make a case for doing so, but they cannot do so because they "just don't like it." It was a general statement, IMO. Sunray (talk) 08:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I agree with that, of course. Thank you, Sunray.--Rainer P. (talk) 08:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Onward. Sunray (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I got a chuckle out of Maelefique's "happy thoughts" post. It is good to maintain a sense of humour. However, as examples, elsewhere on this page demonstrate, incautious words can lead to impasses and disputes. Wikipedia is pioneering an approach to creating a civil society (in both senses of the word) on the Internet. While that is serious business, humour is an important ingredient to make it all work. Sunray (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget the ARBCOM finding about NPOV and Sourcing:

Neutral point of view and sourcing

"The requirement of the neutral point of view that points of view be represented fairly and accurately, and Wikipedia's nature as an encyclopaedia, demand that articles should always use the best and most reputable sources. A neutral point of view cannot be synthesised merely by presenting a plurality of opposing viewpoints, each derived from a polarised source."

Accuracy of sourcing

"The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor represents that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context." Sylviecyn (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Expression of non-confidence in moderator

Sylviecyn has said: "I am concerned and disturbed about Sunray's performance as mediator on this project." [25]

This is a very general statement, probably made in anger and unsupported by diffs. However, the role of a moderator is somewhat different than that of a mediator. For one thing, as a moderator, I can voluntarily withdraw. I suggested some guidelines because I was requested to assist with an impasse over sourcing (Cagan). I suggested that moderators have the discretion to remove personal attacks and did so in one case.[26] That would be a condition of my continued participation in this project. So I am happy to withdraw if that is the consensus of project members. I welcome comments on this. Sunray (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sunray, I read Sylviecyn's comment not as an attempted reproach, because she explicitely declared it as "just an example" for an I-message (albeit infelicitous perhaps). Please keep on helping here!--Rainer P. (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

And Rainer P. got it right. It was an example. The project isn't about me or Sunray or anyone else, it's about collaborative editing. That said, anyone can chant, "civility" a hundred times over but when someone is being uncivil and rules are broken, one expects any moderator to intervene, whether or not someone's name is in the uncivil statement, and fairly across the board. That's the entire point. I don't know how to explain it any better. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I endorse Sunray's behavior and participation as a moderator in this project. Civility is a requirement. It shouldn't be necessary for anyone to enforce that, but when it is necessary then someone has to do it. It is not the job of a moderator to make decisions, whether about sources or facts.   Will Beback  talk  00:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I too endorse Sunray's moderator role in this project. JN466 15:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by this 'formalisation' (Motions usually have proposers and seconders, and are not merely outsprings of informal comments) and I'm also unsure about 'endorsement'. I wouldn't have raised the issue in the first place and I'm entirely happy that both Sunray and Steve are doing the best they can. I trust this means we can carry on making progress. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I made no motion. I made a remark trying to make a point and did so badly. I'm sorry for that and hope Sunray accepts. That said, I was also asking for more involvement not less, on the part of the moderators. So, I'm puzzled by this section too. Sylviecyn (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think that there is general support for the moderators. I've been pretty busy off-wiki, but in another week or so, will have more time to devote here. I will try to contribute to keeping the discussion moving forward and will also intervene when I think remarks are overly personal or uncivil. Please try not to shoot the messenger! Sunray (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, Sunray.  :) :) Sylviecyn (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Adjournment of Cagan discussion

I disagree with the adjournment of the Cagan discussion (and don't think we were given sufficient time to respond to the proposal to adjourn). I had asked Steve and Sunray a question about the 'valid points' pro-PIP editors had made and was still waiting for a reply. Maelefique also said he would like an answer to the question. Will said that the role of moderators is not to make a decision on which sources can be used so I am a little baffled as to how we will ever get a decision on PIP or any other source. I am reluctant to get involved in discussion of other sources until this is settled. --John Brauns (talk) 06:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll remove the hatnote if folks want to keep discussing PIP/Cagan, but I don't see what benefit could realistically be gained by more talk. We've taken out the citations to it from all of the articles and haven't found any instance where it should be restored. There are no certainties on Wikipedia about things like this. We can't bind non-participating editors, nor even the future actions of participating editors. We need to take what agreements we can get. We could discuss the book for another month and still not have complete unanimity about it. I think it'd be best for all of us just to accept the current imperfect consensus and move on.   Will Beback  talk  06:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Will, the 'open' nature of Wikipedia doesn't allow definitive 'in perpetuity' decisions - this may be be maddening to anyone used to decision based processes, but it's what we've got and we have live with it here. However, moving on from Cagan need not stop editors discussing with moderators on the basis of 'in principle' issues, so I hope that Steve and Sunray will be able to address the points of concern that John and Maelefique have raised to clarify what (from the Moderators view) the Project processes involved are/should be. On the basis I'd prefer the hatnote to be kept in play. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

When was there consensus to adjourn and close the Cagan discussion? And who decided it? I can't seem to find that conversation, can someone point me to it? Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I made the suggestion that we set aside the discussion on Cagan some time ago. Project members have gone another few rounds since then. While there has been some clarity on the subject, there still is no agreement. I would say that there is a rough consensus to move on and come back to it later. Does anyone disagree? Sunray (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sunray, good to see you here! Yes, I disagree. I think there could be more clarity on PIP if you could answer my question about the 'valid points' made by pro-PIP editors. What were those valid points, and which Wikipedia guidelines support those points? Thanks. --John Brauns (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

John, I don't have much to add about this matter right now. It is not what I think about content, but about what the group of project members think. I'm merely the moderator. I try to summarize what I think is happening. Others correct me if they think I've mischaracterized things. Sunray (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sunray, I guess I was expecting more guidance on Wikipedia policies and guidelines from the moderators, in particular, in this instance, what qualifies as a reliable source. If that isn't the role of a moderator (and I couldn't actually find the role defined anywhere), then I apologise for pushing you for an answer. --John Brauns (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

John Brauns and Sylviecyn - what specific uses of PIP/Cagan as a source do you want to discuss?   Will Beback  talk  18:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Will, I am happy that you have removed PIP as a source, although I am concerned that at some future date when more pro-Rawat editors are here it could get reinstated. I am willing to drop the subject until it resurfaces! :) --John Brauns (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Geaves

Nik, just out of interest, and briefly, what is your view on using Ron Geaves as a source? --JN466 14:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I've included my general assessment of Geaves for example puposes at [27], as yet I haven't fine tuned it to the specific source I've listed as an example. However lets not move to discussing Geaves on this page until a)we've agreed that either the P.I.P discussion is complete or, that we a placing that discussion in abeyance. and b) we've agreed how we will structure the discussion on Geaves. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Membership numbers

I've removed the following text I'd inserted a few days ago:

Ron Geaves (2006) writes that Rawat "retains a significant following in the United States," even if its numerical strength has diminished. National events in the United States attract an audience of around 5,000 to 6,000, although Geaves allows that some of these may be visitors from South America and Europe. A core group of around 2,000 European and North American disciples travel to attend as many of Rawat's live events around the world as they can. Beyond these long-standing students, a new generation of students has been drawn to Rawat through satellite TV programs, DVDs and the Internet; Geaves suggests that the affective ties these more recent students have to Rawat – and to each other – will likely be different from the former pattern of very close-knit groups of devoted disciples.<ref name="Geaves2006b74">Geaves (2006b), p. 74</ref>

Please discuss. --JN466 20:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Folks can discuss this if they like, but I believe we're planning to discuss the status of Geaves as a sources once we finish with the PIP/Cagan discussion. This material might be better discussed at that time.   Will Beback  talk  20:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

We are currently citing publications by Geaves in peer-reviewed academic journals such as Nova Religio and the Journal of Contemporary Religion, as well as contributions by him in standard academic reference works like this one. These are among the most reputable academic publications in this field. By WP standards, these are among the most reliable sources we could possibly use, and should usually be utilised in preference over press sources.

Some editors will no doubt comment that Geaves, as a long-time follower of Rawat, is somehow unsuitable as a source. I beg to differ. The publications concerned are by reputable academic publishing houses which have no axe to grind in any ideological struggle, and who are clearly prepared to accept the integrity of his research. I don't think there is much to discuss here.

Of course, as with any RS, if there is consensus among editors that some passage by Geaves contains a clear and demonstrable error, then it will make sense not to propagate the error. But in all other cases I am not inclined, when faced with an editor's WP:OR on the one hand and Geaves' publication on the other, to give the editor's OR more consideration than a reputably published source.

As for the above edit which I self-reverted, I believe it is reliably sourced, adds value to the article, and should go back in as soon as possible – with improvements as need be. JN466 15:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Do the publications by Geaves in Nova Religio and JCR have anything to do with Rawat, or are they on completely different, unrelated topics? I don't think anyone was saying that Geaves has nothing to say of value in any field. Since he is long-time follower, I don't see how he could say anything negative about PR (saying something very negative would be akin to saying "he's not right, and I've been following him for a long time, so my faith in him must be wrong too") and I don't think it's expected for anyone to publish anything like that. Without a disinterested open mind on this topic, Geaves would seem to be at best, tainted. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The examples given are from the Prem Rawat article. --JN466 11:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Relevant extracts and a link to an online source including the Nova Religio and JCR are at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/scholars#Geaves --Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

How to proceed with Geaves

The last source we considered was a single book. Geaves has written a number of papers and book sections on the subject, and has also made videotaped remarks about the subject. I think the printed publications can be handled together, but there may be other views. Should we take them one by one or all together? Shall we start by compiling a list of the current uses of Geaves?   Will Beback  talk  01:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is pretty obvious that any videotaped comments by Geaves are not RS, unless they were broadcast by a reputable third-party media outfit. Even if that were the case (would be news to me) I would normally prefer using print materials only. Self-published writings by Geaves online should also be off limits. JN466 11:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Why? Some of the videos are published by Words of Peace, one of Rawat's groups, and if Geaves is a published expert on the Elan Vital then his self-published writings on about it would normally be considered usable. I suggest that rather than making these decisions off-the-cuff we should work through this methodically.   Will Beback  talk  02:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I've imported the list of printed sources I previously compiled - the square bracket numbers may well have changed due to recent editing, I'll try to update these in due course, simply to make it easier to track on the relevant article page.

As to how we proceed, although I agree there is much commonality in the printed sources, there are some differences (for instance not all are peer reviewed). Given the problems we had with Cagan perhaps it would be best to start with a single printed source and apply the Assessment process to that - if we agree thereafter all the other printed works share the same qualities we can then wrap those up in the decision on the first assessment. As to the mechanics of the process, as there was some concern of over lack of clarity in the Cagan assessment I do suggest we use a process where individual editors set out in full their own assessments and we then work from those to agree a single consensual assessment. I've set out a suggestion of how that might work at: [28]If that format is acceptable perhaps someone with the knowhow could set up a neutral page based on that, within the Project cluster ? --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for compiling and posting that list. However some of the links don't seem to work.[29] If you compiled the list a while ago then subsequent editing may have altered the links. If there are no objections we can move the "draft style page for Assessment of Sources"/Geaves page into this project space.   Will Beback  talk  09:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The proposed process is far too complicated and time-consuming, and also unnecessary. Geaves is a RS. Please let us rather discuss the existing Geaves cites that any of you have a problem with, on a case-by-case basis (and, to be clear, without first deleting them all). Also, please let me have your feedback on the self-reverted edit at the top of this section. Otherwise, if there are no problems with it, I'd like to reinsert the material. JN466 11:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

To Will, I've corrected/updated the cites for Geaves source 1. I'll work through the others when I have time.

To JN - You contend that Geaves is RS - others have doubts in relation to his close connection to the subject. The process of assessment is a logical way of dealing with these differences. We can all merely state our opinions - and then we'll be at no consensus and Geeves will have to stand as a questionable source. The current articles are an accretion of years of POV pushing - it will take us a long time to unravel the propoganda and we'll all have to be patient as we work through this, a process which would be helped by your removing your UNCIVIL accusation about other editor's 'dissembling'. I certainly object to your reinserting the selfreverted edit until we have agreement on the specific source. I thought we'd agreed that in such cases making the edit would be a task for the moderators ? --Nik Wright2 (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It may be logical to you, but it isn't to me. These are peer-reviewed journals and academic reference works used in libraries and universities. We are held by policy to reflect published opinion in proportion to their prevalence in such sources. If Geaves' writings have been used in an inappropriate or POV-pushing way in our articles -- and they may well have -- that is another matter, and we can look at that. --JN466 11:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Do editors think, when a person writes e.g. a monographic paper on Porsches, that its value is reduced, when they drive a Porsche? I would see a possible COI or a confinement of reliability in case the person were on Porsche's payroll, or get a new one for free each year, but with Geaves nobody has suggested an analogue constellation. I see no constriction of reliability here at all.--Rainer P. (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's a useful analogy. It's my understanding that Geaves has known Prem Rawat since about 1969, and is among Rawat's earliest western followers. The situation is closer to one of Jesus' apostles than to a car buyer. Another concern is that he has not been open about his connection to Rawat in his scholarly writings. I can only find one published paper that includes a mention, though even it doesn't actually say that he follows Rawat's teachings. Those concerns have to be weighed against the fact that he is a scholar whose writings on Rawat have appeared in scholarly books and journals. My approach in the past is that Geaves is a reliable source, but one that needs to be used with care and always with attribution.   Will Beback  talk  20:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

To pursue the car analogy acurately one would have to ask "is the value of a monograph on Porsche reduced by the author being a member of Porsche's marketing department ?" or at the very least "is the value of a monograph on Porsche reduced by the author being a leading light in the Porsche owner's club ?" We can talk around 'what each of us thinks about Geaves' for ever, and we'll get nowhere - we agreed to use an assessment process, let's stick to that and see where it takes us. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Geaves works for his university and gets paid by them, not by Rawat. He plays a leading role nowhere in Rawat's organisation, but because he is a highly knowledgeable and accepted specialist in the field. His spiritual propensity has never bothered any fellow scientist, but has rather been reviewed as a special opportunity for his research. I am not surprised we have an opposing take on this issue. Please explain, which assessment process have we agreed on? Maybe it's too late in the night and I'm forgetting things. Good night.--Rainer P. (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

His spiritual propensity has never bothered any fellow scientist, but has rather been reviewed as a special opportunity for his research.

Is there any way of confirming that assertion?   Will Beback  talk  01:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It was David Barrett, working for INFORM, who first suggested that I combine my unique 'insider' position with my academic training to provide insights into a little studied movement., from a letter from Geaves, found now on http://www.one-reality.net/geaves.htm. Maybe editors remember where it was originally posted around 2004, or if there are other sources.--Rainer P. (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a big difference between one person encouraging him, and his spiritual propensity has never bothered any fellow scientist. The latter statement seems unprovable. We don't know if his spiritual propensity is known to his editors. Only one book even mentions that he knows Rawat.   Will Beback  talk  18:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

What's the next step in the process?   Will Beback  talk  22:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Will as no one has objected, could you go ahead and set up the assessment style page as a subpage – other editors can then participate as they wish.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• It is not common for academics to comment on their own religious allegiance in their writing. Academic writing requires a self-effacing style; hence it is common for academic writers to cite themselves in the third person, rather than say "See my 1994 book" etc. In Geaves' case, you may rest assured that his fellow academics are quite aware of his personal involvement. People in this field know each other.
• We cite plenty of Jewish scholars on Judaism, Catholic scholars on Catholicism, Hindu scholars on Hinduism, etc. What matters is not the religious affiliation of the author, but the extent to which they are accepted as a reliable source by reputable publishers. JN466 00:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not common for academics to comment on their own religious allegiance in their writing.... In Geaves' case, you may rest assured that his fellow academics are quite aware of his personal involvement.

Are there any sources which would confirm these assertions?

There is a qualitative difference between old religions with millions or billions of adherents and small new religious movements whose leader is still living. How many followers of NRMs do we cite as reliable scholarly sources about their faiths?   Will Beback  talk  00:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It is my understanding that five or six years ago, Geaves was subjected to attacks and harassment from anti-Rawat activists who wrote to his employer, trying to get him fired, launched web pages painting Geaves in a negative light, and so forth. You'll find the controversy online. Geaves responded eventually that these efforts were pointless since he had his employers' full support, and the website was withdrawn in 2004. Geaves has continued to publish on Rawat in the most reputable journals since then. If I remember correctly, somewhere it is also mentioned that Geaves was actually encouraged to write academically about Rawat by fellow religious scholars from Eileen Barker's INFORM, who knew about his personal faith journey and thought that he could combine his in-depth knowledge and scholarly training to good effect.

It is true that we typically exclude writings from followers of NRMs; however, this is due to the fact that they are typically not published by third-party sources, but by the movements' own publishing houses (not third party). If a member of an NRM writes papers that are then published in the most reputable journals, and is commissioned by reputable academic presses to author chapters on their movement in standard reference works, then there is no basis for excluding them. It is not Wikipedians who decide the reliability of an author, it is the publishing world out there. JN466 01:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, please do not bring inaccurate and incomplete accounts of outside Wikipedia activities regarding Rawat and his current and former followers into these discussions. Geaves was politely approached about his role in a published video, and he refused to answer any questions - the story is on my website. This is not the first time you have used these pages to denigrate former followers, so could you please not do so. Let's keep these discussions to which sources can be used for the articles. Thanks. --John Brauns (talk) 11:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Scholarly writing strives for an objective rather than subjective tone. Here are some basic guidelines on academic writing: http://unilearning.uow.edu.au/academic/2d.html You can find many such pages around; this one is quite representative. JN466 01:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

We're not discussing tone here. I don't see how that link is at all relevant to the discussion of how to use Geaves's papers as sources.   Will Beback  talk  02:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I had made assertions about academic writing style, and you seemed to be asking me to back them up. My apologies if I misunderstood. --JN466 10:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I was questioning your assertion that "It is not common for academics to comment on their own religious allegiance in their writing." I don't see anything about that in the link. This is an issue of being an original adherent to the t4eachings of the leader of an NRM, and not disclosing that to readers of his scholarly papers. You further assert that his fellow academics are aware of his faith, but I don't see any evidence of that either.   Will Beback  talk  18:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

As a practical matter, Wikipedia editors routinely have to decide which sources are reliable. Geaves' emplyer hired him to teach about the Islamic faith, not to teach about Prem Rawat, and his employer is not the publisher of the papers we're considering. I suggest we follow the objective procedure we previously agreed to, and see if there are any issues with Wikipedia's criteria. If there aren't then going through that process will help everyone agree.   Will Beback  talk  01:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind doing your analysis on some subpage? The objective criteria we should be applying are not in Nik's process, but in WP policy. I am prepared to discuss WP policy here, but not Nik's process. JN466 02:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the process that Nik proposed at the top of this page, and to which you said "Not opposed to giving it a shot", is based entirely on Wikipedia policy. If you don't want to participate you don't have to.   Will Beback  talk  02:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Will, we gave it a shot with Cagan. I have no confidence that the result will be any different with Geaves. In the case of Cagan, I was prepared to engage in the discussion, because I agree that Cagan has some problems. In Geaves' case, discussion is farcical. Yes,

• let's mention once in each article citing Geaves (or twice if it is a long article) that Geaves is a follower (who do we cite for that if not Cagan?),
• let's explicitly attribute stuff that could be contentious to Geaves by name,
• let's agree not to cite any clear errors Geaves has made,
• let's be sure that Geaves is not used to an extent eclipsing other notable opinion,

but beyond that, Geaves' articles in peer-reviewed journals, and his chapters in academic reference works are clearly reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. No amount of discussion and argument can change that. --JN466 10:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, I think this is a reasonable approach, although there may need to more discussion about any contentious content. I am concerned that for later periods of Rawat's life, Geaves may be the only source, but if this situation arises then we can deal with each reference individually. You raise a good point about which source can be used for Geaves being a follower. I'll think about it! --John Brauns (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Response to JN and Rainer re: principles regarding Sociology and academic publishing:

1. Sociology is not a Science, even if the term Social Science is often used as a synonym – to qualify as a Science a field of study must be amenable to the rigorous application of the Scientific Method. Sociology is patently not amenable to the rigorous application of the Scientific Method and the writings of Sociologists are fundamentally ‘opinions’ formulated on the basis of adopted perspectives. See Sociological perspective and Sociological imagination
2. Unlike areas of study based on the Scientific method , there is no achievable definitive Expert opinion within Sociology and because each opinion is perspective mediated, any one opinion is merely as valid as any other; this means that Sociological opinion can not be used as a definitive statement about the real world but rather as one of many treatments of Sociological theory.
3. The assertion that “It is not common for academics to comment on their own religious allegiance in their writing. Academic writing requires a self-effacing style; hence it is common for academic writers to cite themselves in the third person” is of course true for academic writing in general, but this does not take account of the difficulties acknowledged by Sociologists (for example the researcher merely by participating in a social process to ask a question may alter that process) and the development of Qualitative Research in which the researcher sets out to write in the first person is an accepted response to such difficulties.
4. Academic group perspective and collegiate acceptance is a cause for particular concern where encyclopaedic use is being considered. The fact that a group of academics all publish from a similar persective doesn’t validate the perspective, in science the validation comes from the application of the Scientific method. In Sociology where there is no such external validation, the development of an untestable group paradigm is frequent and members of a such a group, be they work colleagues or subscribers to common perspective journals and conferences, will inevitably provide each other with mutual validation. Encyclopaedically it is necessary to look outside of any one paradigm group to provide sources of balancing perspective and this may be difficult to find where the subject attracts only limited academic interest. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

None of the above is based in Wikipedia policy. Arguing that academic mainstream opinion is by its nature suspect and should therefore be rejected in favour of non-mainstream sources is diametrically opposed to WP policy. JN466 10:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

JN if I had written what you claim I have, there would indeed be a problem - however at no point did I suggest that mainstream academic opinion should be rejected in favour of non-mainstream sources. Nothing I wrote contradicts WP policy, I've merely spelt out where the limitations in Geaves' work lays - it ain't science, so all there is, is untestable opinion except where specific evidence is quoted. If Geaves can say about another academic However Professor Tunden(sic) was a loyal devotee of Shri Hans Ji Maharaj and Secretary of Divine Light Mission in India. It is not possible to corroborate this insider discourse from elsewhere”. then we must conclude that the uncorroborated opinion (no matter the claimed expertise) of Geaves’, the loyal devotee of Guru Maharj Ji, is likewise suspect. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've moved Wikipedia:WikiProject Prem Rawat/Assessment of Geaves into the project. It looks like a very reasonable method of evaluate a source. Let's give it a try.   Will Beback  talk  18:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

For those who are interested I've made my comments specific to the single source under discussion [30], all other editors need to do is go through the assessement process and list their own conclusions. Anyone should be free to take what any other editor has written and incorroporate it in their proposal but otherwise stick to a single numbered proposal, i.e don't edit what someone else has written. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

I am not impressed, Nik. In the source you are evaluating, Geaves writes,

"In the 1980s, Divine Light Mission was disbanded and Elan Vital was established to more effectively promote Maharaji's teachings ..."

In your assessment, you comment,

"1. Geaves erroneously claims that Élan Vital was created as a new organisation. 2. Geaves erroneously claims that the Divine Light Missions was disbanded."

and argue that because of these mistakes, among other things, Geaves is unreliable.

However, in James R. Lewis's The encyclopedia of cults, sects, and new religions, published in 1998 and predating any writing by Geaves on Rawat, we find on page 211 (and not from Geaves),

When the Divine Light Mission was disbanded, the organization Elan Vital was created ...

The same text is also present in Lewis's "Cults: A Reference Handbook" (p. 122).

Likewise, Galanter in his Cults and new religious movements: a report of the American Psychiatric Association (1989) wrote {

"The guru Maharaj Ji disbanded the organisational apparatus of Divine Light Mission and now remains in touch with followers only through personal tours ...

Linda Edwards in A brief guide to beliefs: ideas, theologies, mysteries, and movements (2001) writes that

In the early 1980s Maharaj Ji ordered all ashrams to be disbanded ... After this action, the organization Elan Vital was created to support Maharaj Ji's ongoing teaching of his students on a one-to-one basis and worldwide travel.

Timothy Miller in America's Alternative Religions writes that

During the 1980s, Maharaji began the slow dissolution of the Divine Light Mission ...

In fact, the whole literature I am aware of is agreed that the DLM organisation, which had an ashram network and a headquarters with a considerable amount of staff, was dismantled in the early 1980s, and replaced by the much sparser Elan Vital set-up. But you don't argue that Lewis, Galanter, Melton, Miller or Edwards are unreliable for saying the same thing Geaves is saying. And frankly, if the entire published literature says one thing and you, Nik, say another, that means you are trying to subvert the basic principles of WP by trying to get editors to buy your unpublished original research in preference over what multiple reliable sources say.

You castigate Geaves for being responsible and adding a cautionary note at a place where he cites one of his coreligionists, who in 1970 self-published a celebratory biography with the gushing title Satguru Shri Hans Ji Maharaj: Eternal is He, Eternal is His Knowledge. To me this simply proves that Geaves writes soberly and applied the same academic standards to his coreligionist as he did to the dozens of other sources he cites in that book.

Lastly, you make an issue of Geaves' participation in a "promotional film" about Rawat. I am so sick of this presumption of bad faith just because someone takes an active part in the social life of a faith group that you object to. Someone can be a premie if they want to, Nik, just as they can be a Jew, a Scientologist, a Baha'i or a fundamental Christian. And they can take part in Jewish videos, Scientologist videos, Baha'i videos or Christian fundamentalist videos all they like. A person's private belief has nothing, nothing to do with whether I will consider them a reliable source or not. JN466 17:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you point me to where Nik said that Geaves has no right to be a premie? I can't find it. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the statement about DLM and EV is that it is systematically incorrect throughout sources you show, and Geaves repeats it. What is factually correct is that DLM and EV are one and the same non-profit corporation (at least in the U.S.) with a name change. It's a provable fact by looking at the Colorado Secretary of State corporation documents of Divine Light Mission. If you do a search and type Divine Light Mission, you get Elan Vital. Why? Because they are one and the same corporation in the United States, with the same Internal Revenue tax ID number. In "History and Documents" Item 61 is the "Entity Name Change." You can look it up yourself here by searching for "Divine Light Mission" or "Elan Vital." Both are the same entity. Hope this helps. Sylviecyn (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoops! Forgot the link to CO Sec'y of State: http://www.sos.state.co.us/biz/BusinessEntityCriteriaExt.do?resetTransTyp=Y

Sylviecyn (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you and Nik are concentrating on something that is an irrelevancy in the literature, i.e. that there is a technical continuity between DLM and EV in the US: the registered organisation was renamed. So what? What the literature is focusing on, rightly so, in my view – not that it matters – is that the character of DLM and EV was completely different. The DLM was disbanded in the sense that almost all the people who worked in the headquarters were told their services were no longer required, and that the ashrams were closed down, so people had to find their own places to live. It was the end of an era in the movement. The second problem is that Geaves is being singled out as unreliable for saying something that is in complete agreement with the rest of the literature, and the third problem is that all of this is a waste of time, since we are supposed to reflect the literature. --JN466 01:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Responses to JN

a) Definitive Primary Sources condemn Geaves, not original research.

1. [31]
2. [32]

b) At no point have I said Lewis, Melton, Miller or Edwards are not to be criticised for their impoverished research, and or lazy acceptance of DLM/Elan Vital’s self serving spin – but Lewis, Melton, Miller or Edwards aren’t adherents of the belief system in question, Geaves is and his motives for not giving accurate information become doubly questionable. Galanter’s specialism and his anyway more circumspect language requires he be considered separately, but it is of note that Galanter’s access to Rawat’s followers was facilitated by an individual who now sits on the board of TPRF and material outside of specific pysychiatric relevance may need to be treated with caution.

c) Geaves’ participation in the promotional ‘Passages’ video was not matter of ‘private faith’ – it was a public act and has a direct affect upon his claim to academic independence, as it applies to his writing about Prem Rawat and the organisations connected to Rawat. Even if one were to allow that Wikipedia had some kind of clause regarding ‘privacy of religious practice’ (it doesn’t), there is nothing in the Rawat belief system that demands as a matter of canon law, or obeisance to the teacher, or adoption of precept, that a Rawat ‘student’ must participate in the making of promotional videos. Passages is, unlike Cagan, unquestionably a self published source from Elan Vital, its participants also stand as individual self publishers given the autobiographical scope of their contributions.

d) Reflecting ‘the literature’ does not mean unquestionably accepting demonstrably poor research from a small group of specialists, and this is especially significant when the writings of such specialists are not empirical demonstrations but merely expressions of opinion.

e) As to the construction - i.e. that there is a technical continuity between DLM and EV in the US: the registered organisation was renamed. So what? What the literature is focusing on …….. is that the character of DLM and EV was completely different. The DLM was disbanded in the sense that almost all the people who worked in the headquarters were told their services were no longer required, and that the ashrams were closed down, so people had to find their own places to live. It was the end of an era in the movement.

Where does this come from ? You are confusing two entirely different ‘eras’ – the headquarters that was downsized was in Denver in 1976 – the ashram closure that Geaves talks about was in 1982 and the US DLM had moved headquarters from firstly from Denver to Florida and then from Florida to Los Angeles, in the intervening period. The ashram closure had no connection with changes in the way DLM operated, and you’ll find no evidence in the literature that demonstrates such a connection.

And why should we only be concerned with the US organisation  ? if the US truly is the only evidence base we have, and we are assuming (on what basis ?!) that Lewis, Melton, Miller, Edwards, Geaves et al are only writing about the US situation, then the article(s) content needs to have that very clearly reflected, after all prior to 1976 the articles are concerned with a globalised movement.

--Nik Wright2 (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Re a.: These sources don't condemn Geaves at all. Creating or disbanding an organisation is not a simple question of registering a name, or deregistering it. Many defunct organizations continue to exist on paper. Other organizations have one name on paper but trade and are known under another.

Re e.: The DLM's Denver HQ was much reduced in size in 1976, and given up completely a few years later, after Rawat moved to Miami. Sources are agreed that the DLM ashram structure was dissolved in the early eighties, and centralised functions continued to be reduced in scope. (The sentence "The ashram closure had no connection with changes in the way DLM operated" is to me absurd, since the ashrams were a significant part of "the way DLM operated". The movement gave up its communal lifestyle.)

If you bring alternative sources to the table, well and good, we can present multiple versions of the same events, but it is no good saying we should disregard reputably published sources. As for the US focus, I was replying to Sylviecyn, who talked about the US.

The video: Imagine this were an article on the history of Islam, and you told me that you would like us to disregard a reputably published source because the author is a muslim and recently took part in a video celebrating the Islamic faith – proving thereby that he was actively promoting Islam and thus couldn't possibly be neutral on the subject of Islam ... it doesn't fly, does it? Doesn't fly with a Jew and Judaism, or a Mormon and Mormonism either. And rest assured that there have been people who objected as strongly to Islam, Judaism or Mormonism as you do to Rawatism. Wikipedia does not restrict the faith groups its authors may belong to. It simply asks for reputable authors and publishers. Geaves fufils both requirements. He is a Professor of the Comparative Study of Religion, teaching Islam and Hinduism to undergraduates. His academic speciality is the migration of South Asian religions to the West. WP:NPOV requires that we represent "fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." Geaves' is a significant view. JN466 22:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"The DLM's Denver HQ was much reduced in size in 1976, and given up completely a few years later, after Rawat moved to Miami." It's true that U.S. DLM reduced its staff in Denver in 1976, but untrue that DLM was given up completely after Rawat's move to Miami. I worked at DLM headquarters in Miami Beach in 1980, so I'm quite interested in which source states that. :) Would you please provide the source that says that? Thanks!! Sylviecyn (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, we've had a break, and I think it's time to continue with this discussion on Geaves as a source. Geaves has been a follower of Rawat for 40 years, and in case anyone here doesn't understand, followers of gurus do not criticise their guru, and will try to present their guru in the best possible light. This applies to scholars as well as to simple uneducated followers. Downton said it very clearly; "That premies had lost their capacity for criticism [of Rawat] was fairly clear to me" (Sacred Journeys p188). This is why we should be very cautious in using any follower as a source. Ex-followers have also been criticised as sources, but although I am not currently suggesting that any ex-follower be used as a source, I would invariably choose to use an ex-follower over a current follower as a source. Following a living guru is not the same as being an adherent of an established religion. So, my position is that Geaves can be used as a source for content that he himself gives sources for, in peer-reviewed publications. Any claims he makes without sources should be considered suspect and should not be used. --John Brauns (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

John, there is nothing in WP policies and guidelines that says an author's religious faith impacts in any way on his reliability as a source. We quote Jews on Judaism, Mormons on Mormonism, Hindus on Hinduism, Catholics on Catholicism. This book that we are arguing about is published by Greenwood Publishing, a leading publisher of reference works. There is simply no basis for impugning its credibility, other than prejudice. I will never insist on including Geaves' characterisation of ex-premies in Wikipedia, and I am perfectly willing to look at any place where you can bring me credible evidence that Geaves may be wrong. But I will not listen to any argument that Geaves is unreliable because he is a premie. You will have to do better than that. --JN466 20:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Geaves cites

Geaves

Geaves source 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat#cite_note-0 [1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat#cite_ref-11 [12] possible confused source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat#cite_note-27 [28] *miss applied

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Light_Mission#cite_note-76 [77]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Light_Mission#cite_ref-102 [103] miss credited to Melton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Light_Mission#cite_note-112 [113]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elan_Vital_(organization)#cite_note-10 [11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Ji_Maharaj#cite_note-25 [26]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat#cite_note-5 [6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat#cite_note-18 [19]

Source = Ron Geaves in Christopher Partridge (Eds.), New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities pp.201-202, Oxford University Press, USA (2004) ISBN 978-0195220421

Geaves source 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat#cite_note-Geaves2006-3 [4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat#cite_ref-Geaves2006b64_17-0 [18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat#cite_note-106 [107]

"Rawat does not see himself as part of a tradition or as having to conform to the behavior of any predecessor"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Light_Mission#cite_ref-Geaves2006_71-0 [72]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techniques_of_Knowledge#cite_ref-18 [19]

"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."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat#cite_note-0 [1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat#cite_note-5 [6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat#cite_note-13 [14]

"Prem Rawat has affinities with the mediaeval Nirguna Bhakti (formless devotion) tradition of Northern India, more commonly known as Sant. With its emphasis on universalism, equality, direct experience, criticism of blind allegiance to religious ritual and dogma, and tendency towards syncretism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat#cite_note-29 [30]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat#cite_ref-43 [44]

Source = 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.

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), (2006), Journal of Alternative Spiritualities and New Age Studies, 2 44-62. "Online version at the "Alternative Spiritualities and New Age Studies Association" website" (PDF). http://www.asanas.org.uk/files/002geaves.pdf. Retrieved 2008-06-14.

Geaves source 3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat#cite_ref-27 [28]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Light_Mission#cite_ref-99 [100]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Light_Mission#cite_ref-119 [119]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Ji_Maharaj#cite_ref-15 [16]

Source = Geaves, Ron (2004-03). "From Divine Light Mission to Elan Vital and Beyond: An Exploration of Change and Adaptation". Nova Religio 7 (3): 45–62. http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/nr.2004.7.3.45. Retrieved 2008-10-14.

Geaves source 4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat#cite_ref-Geaves2006b64_17-0 [18] - Geaves

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat#cite_ref-Geaves2006b64_17-1 [19] - Geaves

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Light_Mission#cite_ref-95 [96]

Source = Geaves, Ron. "From Guru Maharaj Ji to Prem Rawat: Paradigm Shifts over the Period of 40 Years as a 'Master'". In: Gallagher, Eugene V.; Ashcraft, W. Michael (eds.) (2006), Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America, 4, Westport CT: Greenwood Press, pp. 71–73, ISBN 0-275-98712-4

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oZiScvbS6-cC&pg=RA3-PA82&lpg=RA3-PA82&dq=Introduction+to+New+and+Alternative+Religions+in+America+Geaves&source=bl&ots=sCH6T4zHUb&sig=FeH9pyTYGvuFaYOP2LDLZBvfQAA&hl=&ei=bXGOSrqiBYHp-QazlPXyDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Geaves source 5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Light_Mission#cite_ref-151 [152]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Ji_Maharaj#cite_ref-GeavesParampara_8-0 [9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Ji_Maharaj#cite_ref-FTTM_9-0 [10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Ji_Maharaj#cite_ref-FTTM_9-1 [10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Is_Guru_Maharaj_Ji%3F#Further_reading

Source = Geaves, Ron, "From Totapuri to Maharaji: Reflections on a Lineage (Parampara)" in Indian Religions: Renaissance and Revival, ed. Anna King. London: Equinox, 2007

Geaves source 6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Light_Mission#cite_ref-98 [99]

Source = Statement from Dr. Ron Geaves" September 27, 2004 http://web.archive.org/web/20050421151919/http://rongeaves.com/

Geaves source 7

unused as cite

Source = Geaves, Ron: "Forget Transmitted Memory: The De-traditionalised ‘Religion’ of Prem Rawat" in Journal of Contemporary Religion, Vol. 24/1, 2009

Cite list corrected as at: --Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Brushfire briefly revisited

The January 1979 LA Times article, "Malibu Guru Maintains Following Despite Rising Mistrust of Cults", described Rawat's house in January 1979, i.e. three months after the brushfire, as follows: "At the end of narrow, winding Trancas Canyon Road in Malibu stands a palatial, walled estate with a sweeping view of the Pacific Ocean and the Santa Monica Mountains still blackened by the October brushfire."

I suggest that pretty much backs up Cagan. Any objections to restoring the subclause mentioning the fire, citing both Cagan and LA Times? (Without Cagan it is strictly speaking SYN, but I'll settle for the LA Times alone if need be.) JN466 21:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I object to citing Cagan, but no objection to citing reputable newspapers. However, is this incident significant enough to be included in a Wikipedia BLP? Lots of famous people have had their houses blackened or even burnt down by the frequent California fires. Do all such incidents get a mention in their bios? But I am glad you think the LA Times is a reliable source as this will make future discussions of sources easier. --John Brauns (talk) 10:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that "blackened by the October brushfire" refers to the mountains, not the "palatial, walled estate."   Will Beback  talk  23:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The verbatim, given above, is "stands a palatial, walled estate with a sweeping view of the Pacific Ocean and the Santa Monica Mountains still blackened by the October brushfire". The only grammatical analysis possible is that the estate was blackened by the fire, is it not? --JN466 23:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If I were writing it and meant that I would have written "stands a palatial, walled estate, with a sweeping view of the Pacific Ocean and the Santa Monica Mountains, still blackened by the October brushfire", making the views a parenthetical clause.   Will Beback  talk  00:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand why the fire has any significance in the article. It is a tiny blip on the radar of Prem Rawat's life story. Can someone explain why it's being considered for this article? Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It precipitated his move to Miami, where he then stayed for several years. --JN466 16:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Self-published books

This relates to a currently ongoing discussion at the Prem Rawat talk page. Nik and Sylviecyn have argued for inclusion of a self-published book by Mike Finch, who appears to be a friend of theirs, under "Further reading".

My concern is that self-published materials are expressly disallowed as sources and external links in BLPs, except for materials by the subject themselves. This applies even to the self-published writings of acknowledged experts (there is no published evidence that Finch is acknowledged as such an expert). Per WP:FURTHER, a "Further reading" section is equivalent to an "External links" section, and the same ground rules apply.

A secondary concern is that a group of editors promoting their friend's self-published book on Wikipedia strikes me as a COI and likely an example of WP:ADVOCACY.

Nik inserted the book on October 15; I removed it shortly after.

Publisher's website: [33] --JN466 23:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why this book should be treated differently from "Peace is Possible".   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Two reasons: (1) Cagan is a well-known and reputable biographer. Finch is, as far as I am aware, unpublished. (2) Cagan's book is not self-published. --JN466 23:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I don't see where it says that the same rules apply to both external links and "further reading" sections.   Will Beback  talk  23:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to go to the WP:BLP talk page and suggest that, while we strongly disapprove of editors adding links to self-published online writings to BLPs, the policy should make clear that adding self-published books from BookSurge and Lulu.com etc. is fine? --JN466 23:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I just don't see the policy you referred to. Maybe that's what the style guideline implies, but I don't see any actual guideline or policy. As for the two books, some editors have argued "PIP" is self-published. I suggest we treat them the same and either include or exclude both.   Will Beback  talk  02:52, 23 October 2009(UTC)

Why is this being discussed here, it is not an agreed Project issue ? Further JN is opening up criticism of Project members, which certainly has no place here and a discussion (apart Rainer P using the off Wiki activities of editors as a basis for personal criticism)of this issue has progessed on the article Talk Page. The inclusion of one book in the FR section is not fundamental to the Project, although discussion of that book under our agreed disputed sources process is - a process that JN has opted out of. This has all th hallmarks of forum shopping and I'd ask the moderators to put a stop to it now. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No editor has argued that PIP is self-published, and you and Nik specifically rejected my proposal to treat it as though it were, arguing that it clearly is not self-published. In addition, even if it were self-published, sources published by the subject are expressly permitted under WP:BLP. On the other hand, the Cagan book should not really be in the Further reading section per WP:FURTHER given that it is mentioned in the article proper. I'll remove it from the Further reading section. --JN466 16:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly suggest that you remove your comments about Nik and myself, Jayen466. They're inappropriate, incorrect, and assumes bad faith. Where I choose to post on the internet is none of yours or anyone's business, furthermore, your and other pro-Rawat editors' use of Guilt by association and making other negative assumptions about the motives of fellow editors is completely out of line. I ask that the moderators remove your negative statements if you don't do it yourself. Btw, not that it's any of your business either way, but I've never met Mike Finch, John Brauns, or Nik Wright in my entire life So just knock this bullshit off please. Enough is enough.  :( Sylviecyn (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Without any notice to involved parties, Momento has started a thread on this question at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Self published books for further reading.   Will Beback  talk  19:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And, without any notice to involved parties, Jayen466 has started a thread on this question at Wikipedia talk:Layout#Vanity press publications in further reading.   Will Beback  talk  19:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Jayen466 is clearly forum shopping without concensus from participants of this project. I also question the appropriateness of Momento seeking an opinion in BLP about an issue that will directly affect what's allowed in the Rawat article. Isn't that a violation of his ban? This issue has gotten way out of control. These people haven't even read the book!  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Time out

• That's enough. Can everyone please take 24 hours time out - from discussions and articles. We will continue discussing then, but you all appear to need a good cup of tea, a day away from the computer, and some time out. Let off some steam. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the input, but no one has commented here in 24 hours. Instead, they've chosen to go to other noticeboards or talk pages to pursue this. I'm not sure your suggestion would really help anything.   Will Beback  talk  03:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, perhaps there was a sufficient break in this case to allow members to continue amicably. However, I like Steve's suggestion about taking breaks when the discussion gets hot. What do members think of making this a practice in the future? If we did, what would the process look like?Sunray (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess this is what it would look like. ;) I don't think there's any way of institutionalizing it. Since the closing of the last ArbCom case the discussions have been much quieter and more productive.   Will Beback  talk  22:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

To be more specific, if a moderator were to ask one or more members to take a break, would that be respected? Sunray (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess we won't know until it happens. However the opposite has occurred instead - folks have pretty much stopped partipicipating in the discussions here. Perhaps it's a matter of letting "sleeping dogs lie".   Will Beback  talk  23:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Time outs are for children. Period. I'm 56 years old. I hope that answers your question, Sunray. :) You and Steve pay such minimal attention to this project except to belatedly respond to heated arguments that have long fizzled out. So while I respect both of you and your other interests on Wikipedia, I also wonder why both of you bothered to on sign on to first, mediation and now this project. Also, has it escaped everyone's attention that Momento managed to get the BLP policy changed with respect to the Prem Rawat article to prohibit the insertion of a self-published book? All he got was a warning by someone and I think he should have had his ban extended. Damn those bumbling bureaucrats!  :) Sylviecyn (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I figured "time out" was a nicer way of saying "short term topic ban". I've been minimally involved on Wikipedia at all recently, increased workload etc, but I try and keep an eye on things when possible. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Geaves paragraph

Just noting here that I reinserted a paragraph sourced to Geaves. Related discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat#Followers JN466 08:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Why did you do so despite the opposition on the article talk page? Are we still editing by consensus or is it every editor can just add whatever they like?   Will Beback  talk  09:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Because the opposition was so off-the-wall. If I am being told by a group of editors that my reliably published scholarly source contains falsified attendance figures, while these selfsame editors on their website have posted the exact same figures in private conversation with each other, then it is no longer possible to assume good faith. --JN466 16:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, who is telling you that your source contained falsified figures? I am arguing that Geaves is not a reliable source. If you are refering to posts on my forum then I would argue that my forum is also not a reliable source, so I'm sure we have no disagreement there. The fact is until we have a consensus on Geaves we have no reliable source for those figures. Why don't you continue the discussion above on Geaves as a reliable source? Surely you can see that it would be better to establish here if and how Geaves can be used as a source before making edits to the articles? I have posted above my reasons for objecting to Geaves as a source. Perhaps you could civilly respond instead of using the somewhat inflammatory language you have slipped into. --John Brauns (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

John, you ask, who is telling you that your source contained falsified figures? My originally proposed wording ran as follows:

Ron Geaves (2006) writes that Rawat "retains a significant following in the United States," even if its numerical strength has diminished. National events in the United States attract an audience of around 5,000 to 6,000, although Geaves allows that some of these may be visitors from South America and Europe. A core group of around 2,000 European and North American disciples travel to attend as many of Rawat's live events around the world as they can. Beyond these long-standing students, a new generation of students has been drawn to Rawat through satellite TV programs, DVDs and the Internet; Geaves suggests that the affective ties these more recent students have to Rawat – and to each other – will likely be different from the former pattern of very close-knit groups of devoted disciples.<ref name="Geaves2006b74">Geaves (2006b), pp. 64, 74</ref>

It received the following responses here on Wikipedia:

• "Geaves's numbers should be ignored as patently inaccurate and self-serving for his master and guru." Sylviecyn (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• "Geaves is plainly an interested party ... is there any evidence that these 'recent students' actually exist ? ... I can't see how this Geaves material is anything more than self serving marketing material. -Nik Wright2 (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• "Geaves claim of a 'new generation of students' is unsourced and extremely suspect. --John Brauns (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

These are posts from the ex-premie forum:

• "We know that 4-5000 attended Miami this year" --Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 04:28:30 (EST) From: JHB
• "Attendance at events in the west is steady at about 5000" --Posted by: JHB ® 04/19/2005, 18:06:14
• "that's not even for a major tour event (like the 7,000-8,000 attending those multi-day Long Beach programs in the 1990s)"
• "I get many emails from new premies, who have just got Knowledge (of Key 6 or whatever it is called now)," Posted by: Mike Finch ® 09/11/2008, 06:58:47

Just for reference, "new generation" was my words, not Geaves'. Here links to the original pages of Geaves. --JN466 19:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Now, if you put yourself in my shoes, can you possibly understand how I might feel I am being given the run-around here, and that people are bowling googlies at me? --JN466 19:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This all seems off-topic. Let's stick to discussing Geaves.   Will Beback  talk  20:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

And if other editors have difficulty assuming good faith on Jayen's part because he deliberately injects material, despite obvious rejection by the majority of editors, should we also cease assuming good faith? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, that was not my objection and I regard the accusation as being an assumption of bad faith. Further, I don't think it's helpful to refer to a "group of editors", which implies some coordinated action. Different editors have different objections.   Will Beback  talk  17:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The most qualified scholar on the subject with several peer-reviewed articles and contributions to high ranking anthologies on the same is being dismissed, because some editors don’t like his message. That is plain intolerance. I hope our mediators are ready to recommend adequate measures.--Rainer P. (talk) 07:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Geaves is being dismissed outright by anyone here. But he is a partisan, and his work needs to be treated with care. I just noticed an apparently misleading assertion in one of his recent histories of Rawat and the movement: that the movement does not keep records of those who've been initiated. Without getting into the details, there are sources that discuss the expensive IBM computer leased in the 1970s to track members, and in the 2000s there are reports that initiates are issued smartcards. I recall that some other errors, omissions, or distortions have been identified previously. No scholar is perfect, and a few minor errors are to be expected. However if there is a pattern then it needs to be considered. Jossi used to say that no source is reliable for all uses - it all depends on context. I suggest that folks who are knowledgable on this topic review the available works on Rawat by Geaves and see if there are facts or interpretations that differ from those found in sources written by non-followers. In some cases, Geaves may be a minority significant point of view, while in others his interpretations may be so unusual that they should not be used.

We tried to follow a process before, which may have been too complicated. Maybe a simple list of "pros" and "cons" would be a more practical approach.   Will Beback  talk  08:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(inserted here for discussion flow) I have absolutely no objection to moving to a more efficient form of logical assessment, if someone can actually propose such a thing. However, no one has actually shown that what was used for P.I.P shouldn’t continue to work for assessing other sources, provided editors act with good faith. The current problem is that JN has refused to accept the agreed process and chose to edit the Rawat article using a source that we have listed for discussion Geaves source 4 [34]

The resulting unstructured (and from JN, breaches of AGF and WP:CIVIL) exchanges regarding the Gallagher/Ashcraft book have wasted time and led nowhere. Only on the basis of the application of logic can we achieve a consistent approach toward sources; the repetition of “it’s RS it must be used” is not an argument that in anyway assists discussions about “how” a source “may” be used and it is “how” as much as “what” that has consistently provided difficulties in the past. The assertion that whatever an “approved of” author writes, should qualify as WP:RS, is patently absurd and each discrete publication needs to be assessed on its own merits, and then the content judged for relevance to any given article. Thereafter, comes discussion about whether proposed content is even appropriate to use within that article – in the case of Prem Rawat it’s debatable whether anything after 1983 can be considered notable – after all how many other WP bios accord notability on the basis of having a few thousands followers ?

I suggest either that someone formally proposes an alternative process, or we go back to what was agreed. If other editors want to make progress with what we previously agreed, then comments are required on this: Propsal page - in my proposal I made a point of quoting Geaves from the Gallagher/Ashcraft book on the very fact of uncorroborated evidence. After JNs recent contributions it seems even more apposite. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

We better keep our hands on the railing--Rainer P. (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)There's no sourced and/or statistical evidence in Geaves for number of adherents in the U.S., nor for live Rawat event attendees. There's no evidence of a "new generation of followers" in the U.S. Jayen distorts Geaves's own unsourced, uncited adherent numbers, by writing: "National events in the United States attract an audience of around 5,000 to 6,000, although Geaves allows that some of these may be visitors from South America and Europe.

• In 2006 Elan Vital published it's statistics on number of U.S. contributors: "The generosity of over 1,964 U.S. contributors helps support Maharaji's work." See Elan Vital Statistics

• Here is more anecdotal evidence the low number of propagation results of new people receiving Knowledge in the U.S., from a former premie who was treasurer and management team member for seven years (approx. 2000 through 2007) of the only permanent Knowledge Center in the U.S. From Prem Rawat Talk Forum, 10/15/2009, 02:12:30, Bob Tooker (Lakeshore) Post titled: "The hall in Stamford" (Connecticut)

"For seven years, I was the treasurer and a member of the management team for that hall in Stamford, the High Ridge Conference Center, and also for The Mail Order Library that operated out of it.

"That was just after we turned it into a regional "Knowledge Center" for Key 6 events for aspirants from throughout the northeastern U.S. and beyond to receive Knowledge, with aspirants occasionally flying in from as far away as Colorado, Michigan, Texas, etc.

"As a premie, I was particularly proud of it because it was perhaps the only permanent "turnkey" venue set-up especially for Key 6 events without having to rent a hotel room or prepare somebody's home or some other alternative, which was no small task at the time.

"We had two fully trained and independent Key 6 event teams ready to alternate weekends in order to accommodate up to 48 aspirants a month receiving Knowledge, the long anticipated avalanche of propagation that still hasn't taken off.

"We were ready, that’s for sure, slow moving elephants that we were.

My Note: This is in reference to Prem Rawat's recent comment that with respect to propagation in the U.S., that U.S. premies are slow-moving, farting elephants.]

"Alas... it was never necessary as there were seldom more than three to five aspirants receiving Knowledge a month (from a wide geographic area) and typically only two or three."

Mr. Tooker states that at the most, approximately 3 to 5 people per month were attending Key 6 Knowledge sessions.

• This is Jayen's response to Will Bebeck request to him on Jayen's talk page as to why he didn't answer the question "why" about the Geaves material was added into the article without consensus:

"As for the discussion on Geaves as a source on the project page, I had not received any significant response to my post time-stamped 22:32, 30 September at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Prem_Rawat/Current_article_issues#How_to_proceed_with_Geaves. I considered the matter closed." I would argue that this is not collaborative or consensus-building on Jayen's part, but veers too closely to WP:OWNERSHIP.

It would be most helpful if editors here decide on a page to discuss Geaves as a reliable source and the parameters of using Geaves as such. Bouncing from the Prem Rawat Talk page to this page will only make conversations difficult to follow. I think the appropriate page to have this discussion is exclusively here. Thanks. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What you write here, Sylviecyn, is interesting, but it does not relate to the text I originally proposed, which spoke of attendances of 5000 to 6000 at US events. This figure has multiple confirmations from both present and former premies. Are you saying there weren't 5,000 people in San Diego in 2007?

Second, assuming your friend's assessment is accurate, are you aware that it applies only to the US? I could well believe that the US market does not produce many recruits these days, but there is plenty of evidence that Rawat has his fans in other countries, in India, Malaysia, South America, Southern Europe, etc. We are a global encyclopedia. --JN466 18:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You continue to obfuscate the subject and break the agreements you made to participate in this project, Jayen. Geaves's writing in your particular edit refers to the U.S., South American, and European premies, not in Asian countries. Your anecdotal evidence comes from press releases and premie blogs. I already said what I wrote was anecdotal. But whether you like it or not, EV/TRPF/WOPG distorts their numbers and always have. Here's some more anecdotal evidence: There was a funeral in the Northeastern United States a year or so ago for the husband of a prominent premie, who is a former instructor. Her husband was never a premie and wasn't religious in the least. When he died, 900 people attended his funeral and because there were Prem Rawat quotes printed on the funeral program, his wife and her "premie team" reported to EV/TPRF (or whatever organization that they report to these days -- it's difficult to know, because of the plethora of non-profits that have been formed around him in the past nine years) that 900 new people were introduced to Prem Rawat and Knowledge, in such-and-such month. That's how it works in this nrm/cult, whether you like it or believe it. Premies will stoop that low to use the funerals of their spouses in order to distort propagation numbers. Either you're going to be part of this project or not, Jayen. Make a decision to stick to your agreements and promises here, or not. It's your choice. Sylviecyn (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sylviecyn, you say, Geaves's writing in your particular edit refers to the U.S., South American, and European premies, not in Asian countries. Here is Geaves' writing. He speaks of "a variety of audiences worldwide". You can criticise the way I have summarised Geaves, but don't put words in his mouth and criticise him on that basis. Read the source, read my summary of it, and then tell me how we can summarise it better. --JN466 21:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• FYI: Jayen466 has posted a thread about this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Scholar writing about his own faith group. I don't think his initial posting included all of the fast, and I added some background. Other editors may wish to give input as well so that the uninvolved editors get a full picture.   Will Beback  talk  17:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Closing mediation

Steve and I are now ready to close the mediation. Since this project is now well-launched and any further debates and disputes can be dealt with here, there seems to be no further reason to continue with the mediation case. Unless we hear compelling reasons to the contrary, I will close within the next day or so. Sunray (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sunray, when this project started, you wrote:-

Let's put a hold on the mediation (say for one month) and move discussion to the project page. If a need to resume mediation arises we can come back here. If nothing comes up, we will close the mediation. Sunray (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'm not confident that as a project 'team' we have reached the point where we 'further debates and disputes can be dealt with here'. For instance, the Geaves issue hasn't been resolved in spite of much discussion in two parts of this page, WP:RS/N, and the Prem Rawat article talk page. By closing the mediation page does that mean that you and Steve will have no further involvement in these discussions? If so, then I foresee the need for new mediation in the future. But then, maybe you are right and we should stand on our own feet like grown-ups! :) If this is the end of your involvement, let me say thanks for willing to get involved, and all the best. --John Brauns (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that I said anything about not behaving like "grown ups." I agree that not all is roses. Nevertheless, the differences of opinion expressed on the project pages are amenable to resolution via means other than mediation, IMO. Steve and I would continue with the project as moderators. There have been comments that we are not as available as we might be. Guilty as charged. We have both been busy with other projects (in my case a real world move). However, we can both be more available. I would suggest that if a moderator is needed and one doesn't seem to be around, project members may simply ping one of us on our user talk pages. Sunray (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The both of us will still be around to deal with and help guide discussions where we can. I too have been busy in real life (full time work and study) but things are starting to free up a bit more, at least in terms of study committments. I'd also encourage you to poke us when necessary on our talk pages - it's the best way to get our attention. :) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 09:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sunray - I didn't say, and certainly didn't mean to imply, that you said anything about not behaving like grown-ups! :) It was a comment about our own behaviour, not yours. I'm glad you and Steve are still going to be around as moderators! --John Brauns (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks to Sunray and Steven Zhang for their efforts as mediators and moderators. The articles in this topic have been relatively peaceful in the past months and I hope that will continue.   Will Beback  talk  04:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Post-2000 Sources

These are some recently published sources on Rawat/Elan Vital. I believe some of them we haven't drawn on yet; some we may not need/want to use, but I'll park them here anyway just to have a record of them.

• Religion in the contemporary world: a sociological introduction, 2007
• A brief guide to beliefs: ideas, theologies, mysteries, and movements, 2001
• A pocket guide to sects and new religions, 2005
• Alternative religions: a sociological introduction, 2003
• Researching new religious movements: responses and redefinitions, 2006
• Larson's Book of World Religions and Alternative Spirituality, 2004
• Religions of the World, 2002
• Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, 2006
• Global Civil Society Yearbook, 2005 --JN466 23:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

JN, do any of these sources draw on post-1990, non-Geaves sources, or are they all rehashes of previous research? --John Brauns (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)