Talk:Prem Rawat/GA Review March 07

message: This article falls shy of good article standards, in my opinion. It is a good example of a B-Class article, but still needs some work to bring it up to good article quality, particularly in tone and presentation.
1. Well-written. This article is bloated, or simply too long. The lede is a good example of what is wrong with the writing in this article, as it does not adhere to WP:LEAD.  The last sentance of the first paragraph seems out of place in the lede and should be incorporated into the main article. The second and third paragraphs should be mercilessly edited down to a couple sentances, with most of that information in the appropriate article sections. The closing paragraph is written from a POV favouring the subject. The lede also makes no mention of the criticisms he has faced. Also, besides overall length and bloat in the article, the criticisms section should also be written more coherently, instead of being broken down into several sections for individual criticisms.
2. Factually accurate/verifiable. Yes, though see NPOV section below.  Also, there is a high level of sources for the article, many of which overlap in information and POV. Cutting out redundant sources would be a good place to start in paring down both the size of the references list and the size of the article itself.
3. Broad in its coverage. See NPOV section below. This article definately needs a more balanced focus.
4. Neutral point of view. More neutral presentation in the article and in some instances sources with better neutrality would be preferrable. From an outside view, this article spends a lot of time on fawning over the subject and his POV. The criticisms section is well-cited, but poorly written. I receive the impression the criticism section was simply tacked on to appease complaints, without balancing the tone and sources for the rest of the article. Also, for such a controversial figure, the overall balance between positive POV and critical views is way off. This is particularly noticed in how the criticism section is very neutral in tone, while much of the article is written from a very positive POV. What is particularly disturbing to me in regards to NPOV is the occasional use of antagonistic sources to support pro and simple fact claims. This seems dishonest to me, to say the least. An editor can state "anti" sources are included to support a claim of NPOV, but this is a dishonest presentation of the use of those sources. By failing to use sources in their proper context, a casual reader is easily mislead. This not only applies to purely oppositional sources, as negative information from other sources used is also notably absent from the article. 
5. Stable. I cannot endorse this as a stable article. It is not the merge issue others have brought up. GA standards specifically exclude merges. It is simply that looking through the history diffs and talk pages, there is still an amount of disagreement about the article. While this is to be expected with controversial figures, an article that meets general consensus is necessary. I get the impression this is not the case for this article.
6. Images. Good use of images. The article is solid in this respect.
Fail. This article does not meet GA standards. Issues still remain pointed out from two previous peer reviews, such as the poor lede. The strongly positive POV evident in much of the article needs to be corrected. The cherry-picking of information from sources used is at least in poor taste. The article needs to be edited mercilessly to produce more consise writing. More effort needs to be put into building consensus and stability. This article has a lot of potential, but also needs a lot of work. Vassyana 08:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review (Failed) 

message: Further to points 3, 4, and 5 in the above Good Article Review (failed), I offer a new source of information for consideration: a 5-page Report by INFORM ; email: inform@lse.ac.uk.) For anyone not familiar with INFORM and its activities, there is a 2-page description in Peter B. Clarke’s  Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements, London & New York, Routledge, 2006), pp. 348-350.
Here, then, are a few selections from the INFORM report on Prem Rawat (etc.). (I have sought and obtained permission from INFORM to post these.) Editors and others interested are invited to request a copy of the full report from INFORM.
Maharaji / Elan Vital / The Prem Rawat Foundation
What is the Prem Rawat Foundation?
The Prem Rawat Foundation (TPRF) was established in 2003 to promote the teachings of Prem Pal Singh Rawat (1957- ).  Followers of Prem Rawat, also known as the Maharaji, formally established themselves in the West in 1971 and were first known as The Divine Light Mission. After 1982, Prem Rawat’s organisations were known as Elan Vital. In 2009, Elan Vital in the UK changed its name to Human Development through Self Knowledge (HDSK). Rawat's teachings are also promoted through the organisation, Words of Peace, established in the Netherlands in 2008. 
…………..
  
The Divine Light Mission
Prem Rawat’s father Shri Hans Maharaj Ji (1900-1966) taught what he called ‘the Knowledge of the Divine Light and Holy Name,’ in Sindh and Lahore in what is now Pakistan.
………………
In 1971, the young Prem Rawat (known as Maharaji) was invited to the USA and the headquarters of the movement were relocated to Denver, Colorado. The movement grew rapidly, but had several early crises: In 1973, the movement rented the Huston Astrodome (a Football Stadium) with expectations of over 100,000 attending an event. When only 20,000 did attend, the movement was left with a significant debt. Additionally, in 1974, at the age of sixteen the Maharaji married a twenty-four-year-old American follower, Marilyn Johnson. The Maharaji’s mother and brothers were upset by Prem Rawat’s rejection of traditional Indian marital traditions and his growing independence. Prem Rawat’s mother and brothers returned to India, where the mother named the eldest son as head of the DLM. 
The Maharaji experimented with a number of organisational forms during the 1970s, closing then re-opening the ashrams. He experimented with new teaching methods and organisational arrangements, gradually distancing himself from Indian culture in favour of a more universal presentation.
………………………….
[One page further on]
What does Prem Rawat Teach?
……………………
The ‘Knowledge’ consists of 4 meditation techniques which are said to help turn the senses inwards and to lead to a peaceful inner experience through a process of self-realisation or self-knowledge. The early names for these techniques were ‘light’, ‘music’, ‘the holy name’ or ‘the word’, and ‘nectar’, but these names have since been dropped in favour of the practical ‘one, two three and four’. According to former members the first meditation asks the individual to focus on a specific area in between and a little above the eyebrows. ‘Music’ involves shutting the ears with the thumbs and listening. Both of the first two meditations require the use of the mediator’s hands. The third technique involves watching the breath while the fourth requires the mediator to place their tongue in a specific position. 
……………………..
[1 and a half pages further on]
How is the movement financed? 
The movement claims to be financed entirely by donations, with limited income from the sale of books, DVDs and literature. In England income to Elan Vital from donations declared to the Charity Commission in 2008 amounted to over £1.5 million.[7] Some events have suggested donation amounts. 
 
Controversies
There have been many criticisms levelled at Prem Rawat particularly during the time of the Divine Light Mission, but it must be noted that the majority of these criticisms date from the 1970s and early 1980s. Former members are critical that in the early days of the movement, the Maharaji was presented as an incarnation of God and made statements to his followers to this effect. They allege that the young Maharaji encouraged complete surrender to him in a way that was detrimental to their long-term happiness. Former members from the 1970s felt this as an betrayal, especially when considered alongside descriptions of the young Maharishi living a luxurious lifestyle that was prohibited for most premies.  
………………..
Plus references.
To the Movement: http://www.tprf.org, http://maharaji.net, and http://wopg.org/  (plus 2 UK sites).
Academic approach:
Ron Geaves, 2004 and 2006
Lucy Dupertuis, 1986 [Charisma]
Maeve Price, 1979
Critical approach:
http://www.ex-premie.org; http://www.prem-rawat-maharaji.info; http://www.prem-rawat-critique.org
“These sites were largely developed by former members of the organisation.”
Plus a few Notes. Ombudswiki (talk) 08:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: July 2010. Further Sources of Information on Prem Rawat, Guru Maharaj Ji,  the Divine Light Mission, and Elan Vital.