Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 23

message: For those new at this article, please note that the separation of footnotes and references (in which the footnotes are based) was done as a response to a peer review of this article. Please keep as is. Thanks.  peer review 1 archive, and peer review 2 archive. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One could say the same about POV pushing for yourself.  Don't be so quick to judge the motivations of others.  Smee 19:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure. If we can all do that, that would be best. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks good. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: What needs to be done is to move all biblio refs to the appropriate format as the refs that came from the merged article are not in the same format  as all the other refs. It is tedious work (I did all the others a few months ago), but I will do this once the article stabilizes a bit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  references and footnotes 

message: Don't make it appear as if Commons, Wikiquote and Wikisource are "Official websites of Prem Rawat"    
Regarding your edit:   
   
:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prem_Rawat&diff=next&oldid=102026795   
    
The visible layout, once the page is saved, makes it appear as if the Sister Project templates belong to the section titled "Official websites of Prem Rawat"   
    
I already remarked that twice in an edit summary:   
* sorry for the layout but the interwiki-templates should not appear along the "Official websites" links   
* Again, I don't know how to solve this best technically, but the transwiki templates should not appear side-by-side as if they belong to official Prem Rawat websites. They're not.   
    
Again, I'm not completely happy with my solution to that problem. Likewise, I could live with Smeelgova's solution , without feeling anything near to enthousiasm about it. But the solution where the sister project templates appear in the "Official websites of Prem Rawat" section is quite unacceptable. Whatever the unwritten or written rules you refer to, please use your creativity or whatever, but don't make it appear as if some Wikimedia projects are associated with "Official websites of Prem Rawat". --Francis Schonken 19:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. I may have missed these comments. Usually sister links go at the bottom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Check my edit, and let me know if it works for you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the Francis Schonken version above, of Again, I don't know how to solve this best technically, but the transwiki templates should not appear side-by-side as if they belong to official Prem Rawat websites. They're not. Smee 19:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: First, please note that was not my intention. Please WP:AGF. And second, please note my last edit in which I removed the title "official sites", as per usage in other comparable articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a comparable site that uses the convention of "Official sites" and, by the way, has a lot more critical links in its external links section. Sylvia Browne. I propose we add some more critical links, for balance. I will do so. Smee 19:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If "some" of the links violate WP:EL, then remove those that do, and keep those that do not.  Smee 19:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Jossi's talkpage 

message: The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. Only allowing the expansion of "critic's material" is clearly a breach of Wiki policy.Momento 19:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As are attempts by individuals to remove as much criticism as possible from a subject in which they have had direct experiences.  Smee 19:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, it is the responsibility of all Wiki editors to follow Wiki policy and that means "Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one".Momento 21:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Your apparent inability to understand the written English word disqualifies you as a valid interpreter of wikipedia rules.  I'd strongly urge you to leave the reading comprehension to your fellow editors. Mael-Num 21:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need for interpretaion M-N, Wiki policy is very clear.Momento 21:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good, then we agree.  Stop reinterpreting the policies to suit your POV despite every other editor involved telling you that what you're doing is wrong. Mael-Num 22:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Given the choice of listening to editors or listening to Wiki policy - Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view - I'll choose Wiki policy every time.Momento 22:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the bias or malice?  It appears to exist only between your ears. Mael-Num 22:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bias occurs when editors take "critical" comments from half a dozen scholars, give them headings and expand their opinions into paragraphs whilst allowing 20 other scholars only their name.Momento 23:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have pointed out before, it is inherantly necessary to offer significant critical commentary in an article on a subject.  To do otherwise is to not tell the whole story.  The examples I gave before of String Theory and Mother Theresa (among several others) support this.  Or to put it a different way, are you saying that no critical opinion of any source should exist anywhere in Wikipedia? Mael-Num 02:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki policy

message: "Rawat married his then 24-year-old secretary [whom he] claimed that she was 'an incarnation' of the Hindu goddess Durga." 
This doesn't seem like an extraordinary claim.  Does it seem unlikely that he would be unfamiliar with that particular mythological figure, or that he wasn't in the habit of proclaiming divinity left and right in the 1970's (because there is extraordinary evidence of that).  Or is it more likely that a small number of people who are concerned with the perception of Rawat would prefer that this unfortunate detail be omitted? Mael-Num 22:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incarnation doesn't imply reincarnation.  The concepts are distinct. Mael-Num 23:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incarnation is reincarnation if the incarnated has previously existed.Momento 23:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any indication of the claim that this person is twice-incarnated?  Mael-Num 03:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I mind.  How is it redundant? Mael-Num 23:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because there were two paragraphs that discussed the marriage of Rwat in 1974. If you compare the edits you will see I have removed one.Momento 23:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And please, stop with the nicety of asking if something is okay, and waiting all of nine minutes before forging ahead and doing what you please when there is clearly opposition to it. Mael-Num 23:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you oppose deleting duplicate lisdts and redundant paragraphs?Momento 23:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the information is redundant.  Are you sure that this is the case?  It looks like he married two diffent people.  One was 24 and a secretary and one was 25 and a flight attendant.  People remarry, and I'm not familiar with the details outside of what I have read.  Mael-Num 02:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think it is legal in Amercia to marry two people in the one year. A new biogaphy about Rawat "Peace is Possible" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0978869494?ie=UTF8&tag=mightyriverpress-20&link_code=as3&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=0978869494) has just been released and that will clarify whether Johnson was 24 or 25, a secretary or a flight attendent.Momento 02:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's legal in America to marry a new person every day of the week, provided your previous marriage is somehow ended.  It's a pretty liberal place like that. Mael-Num 02:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The reason for the two marriages is a little more prosiac. Smeelova added a new paragraph without realising the subject was already covered.Momento 08:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is this an extraordinary claim? 

message: Hey, am I violating any copy-rights by offering a scanner-copy .pdf-file of Ron Geave's article From Divine Light Mission to Elan Vital and Beyond to genuinely interested editors? The original is expensive and protected against copying and forewarding, so I figure not too many people have really read it. Maybe that's why Ron Geaves is not mentioned among the "scholarly opinions", or is he? He has certainly more to say on the matter than some of the redundant mainstream bores that are being given space among the scholars and critics. Please help me with this problem, and, if it's legally o.k. and you want a copy, leave me your e-mail-address, and I'll be happy to serve.--Rainer P. 15:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Reiner, Welcome back. I may have a OCRed version of that document that I could place at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars for a while until we manage to summarize and add to the article. I will let you know If I find the text version. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Added excerpts from this paper to Talk:Prem_Rawat/scholars#Geaves. Of interest is Geaves' response to Foss and Larkin's paper mentioned in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I will read and see if I can come up with some useful excerpts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ron Geaves 

message: I have incorporated material from the sandbox, for Hunt, Downton, Geaves and Barret, that hope are acceptable to other editors. There is more work to do, but I will wait to hear any comments before moving any further. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi. two things. A friend has sent me a preview copy of the Andrea Cagan biography "Peace is Possible" about Prem Rawat. Can I quote from it as  it is not yet in general release? And second, it seems to me that we agreed to not have a special "Criticism" section about Rawat but rather incorporate any worthwhile criticism in the artcle. I am not comfortable that scholars like Hunt are headlined in a "Criticism" section when he doesn't express a criticism at all but rather notes that there are critics.Momento 02:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding Cagan's book, I would say wait until you get a copy of the book, as "preview copies" or galleys are sometimes quite different from the final edition, and text and page numbers could have changed by the time the book is printed. We need page numbers and exact quotes for verifiability. As for the section name, it is called now "Scholarly opinions and criticism", not "Criticism". I am not 100% happy with this, but for now I would concentrate in incorporating more scholarly material and then see how we can improve/structure the article better, based on the material we have. One step at a time, Momento. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, I haven't had much time in the last couple of days to help contribute.  I did a tiny bit of copy-editing, and I have a suggestion for whomever contributed the Kent information.  The part about, "treats elsehwere in his book the criticism by the countercultural left on him in the 1970s" should probably be expanded.  It's well and good to say that he talks about it, but what does he say?  Is there more information in the sandbox?  And on that subject, where is it (and any talk pages) located?  Thanks in advance. Mael-Num 03:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Andries, if I am not mistaken, was the one that made available material from Kent's book. Maybe you can ask him to provide more material. If he does not have it, I can always check my local University library, but that will take time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's hope editors have enough integrity to recognise Kent is not a reliable source.Momento 03:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not say so, Momento. First, I am not 100% certain of the above blunders as I do not have a copy of the book, and second, even if he made those blunders there is nothing we can do about it, besides listing them. Kent is a sociologist and his book seem to be a treatise of how the radical youth of the 70's became attracted to Eastern philosophies and the like. I would be more concerned about giving proper context to the comments he made about young Prem Rawat, than anything else. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Jossi, what do you mean by "Kent made a few blunders in that book, including making the assertion that wearing business suits were part of the Divine Light Mission liturgies"? Mael-Num 04:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's a little snippet from Kent's website about Melton - "One of the issues that Krebs and I raised about Melton was that he and co-editor James R. Lewis apparently received money from the group, Church Universal and Triumphant, to conduct a study of it, but did not inform readers of the study about this financial arrangement until Melton mentioned it in his rebuttal to our initial article (Kent and Krebs, 1999: 23; Melton, 1999: 17). From our perspective, researchers getting money from a group to conduct a study on it have an obligation to inform readers of this kind of financial arrangement".Momento 03:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Kent does not like Melton much.... they are at opposing sides of the political spectrum as it pertains to the study of new religious movements. Let's focus on the article, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorporating material 

message: I object to the use of one selective quote from 1971 in the lead.  It would be more appropriate to leave such quotes to the article's body where context can be given for reader's benefit. When that was added? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved that new text to the appropriate chronology in the lead, as well as removed the quote. Please note that the "guru is greater than god" quote is still available in the 1970s section of the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Added by Andries in early Oct it but it used to be in the 70's section where it would belong but Francis moved it up. It is a quotes that needs context.Momento 05:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The quote is still in the 70s section. I only removed it from the lead. I would suggest we keep the lead for a later stage, when we have completed incorporating all the scholarly material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't been able to find any corroboration that Rawat described his wife as "an incarnation of Durga Ji". I have heard that he refered to her as Durga Ji, as an affectionate Indian name, much as his brothers have proper names and "title" type names.Momento 01:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a short bio of Prem Rawat at Thomson Gale that says that, so we are attributing the blunder to Thomson Gale. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: We need to find a reliable source that says that upon his marriage, PR gave his wife the Hindi name "Durga Ji", and place alongside the attributed text from Thomson Gale, for reader's benefit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The Thompson Gale quote about the Millenium festival is wrongly quoted. It doesn't say "the event" ran into trouble, but the  "rapidly developing movement". I'm inclined to remove it entirely as it has no relevance to the Millenium festival.Momento 02:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have access to the full text of the Thomson Gale entry? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Having been involved with this article for some time and knowing a considerable amount about Rawat's teachings, I'm removing the Durga Ji quote because it is obviously incorrect.Momento 08:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your concern, Momento, but there are some policies that advise us against that. The issue is not what is true, but what is verifiable. Thomson Gale's obvious mistake, is verifiable as it is published by them. We could write to Thomson Gale and inform them of their mistake, but unfortunately we will need to keep the mistake it in the article, unless there is consensus from all involved editors that the information is incorrect and not worth including. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree Jossi but the alternative is to add even more matreial to the article to correct the mistake. I could add the whole of Hunt's article since it is verifiable and lots more beside but I don't think it would make a better article. But in  the interests of a better article I'm invoking "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." If another editor wants to insert what two editors believe is a mistake, I'll argue with them. Until then common sense says "leave it out".Momento 19:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found this in Andrea Cagan's book - "At the wedding, in keeping with Indian tradition, he gave his new wife a new name — Durga Ji, an Indian goddess seen as the embodiment of feminine and creative energy". Also found new info about 707 in Cagan's book and replaced uncited misinformation.Momento 02:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of quotes in lead 

message: "According to an article in the 1979 Sociological Review, immediately after his marriage, Maharaj Ji gained financial independence from his mother and family through the generosity of his devotees, and these contributions allowed him to follow the lifestyle of an American millionaire". Is a very poor paraphrase of the quote it cites.  It suggests that the marriage preceeded financial independence  and somehow caused it but Price didn't write that at all.Momento 12:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This sentence

message: Why had the article been re-organized per POV instead of per era or per subject, in spite of Francis and my objections against such an organization? Andries 19:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not such re-organization, Andries. The current version follows the merge done a few days ago. We are still collecting and adding scholarly material. When that is done (or if there are any editors that want to start sooner) the plan is to move material to appropriate subject-related sections. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed Jossi. There seem to be three criticisms - divinity, lack of substance and wealth. All three are mentioned in the main body of the article. Divinity is already expanded on, given context and Rawat's reply stated. It seems complete to me. Lack of substance is mentioned but no reply. There is a great deal of material of Rawat saying that his teaching are about the experience of Knowledge not a theory which should be attached to the lack of substance criticism. Wealth is mentioned and expanded on but no reply. There is material of Rawat explaining his attitude to wealth and quite a bit in the Cagan book. I'll try to find something.Momento 02:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do I need to do anything about Mael-Num's ridiculous sock puppet claim?Momento 02:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not believe that Melton wrote that. I think it is Geaves. Andries 19:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could very well be. I will check next time I am at the library. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure re-visited

message: Per the discussion here, I've attempted a somewhat major revision of the lead.  I've tried to crystallize a lot of the rambling details, and added a couple where they were lacking.  Hopefully this version will find favor as an easier read that gives a brief and broad, though not very deep, treatment of Rawat.  Mael-Num 08:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I stopped counting the mistakes you inserted after 4. Let alone the bad writing.Reverted.Momento 09:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...well, I'd recommend you start counting and discussing them here.  And please, don't attack my writing.  It's poor form, and I'm a sensitive person. Mael-Num 09:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If I can show you 4 factual errors, will  you admit that you don't have the editing skills to improve on this article and leave it alone?Momento 09:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an odd request.  Why don't you work to improve the article, and let that be a reward in itself? Mael-Num 09:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm waiting for you to point these errors out. Mael-Num 09:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: C'mon.  Can't you point out just one of these errors?  Maybe give me a hint? Mael-Num 09:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: But...I checked and double checked.  Could you please be specific, and also please stop making personal attacks? Mael-Num 09:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead Rewrite

message: I would like to remind editors:
# This page is not provided to discuss our personal experiences, positive or negative;
# This page is  not provided to discuss the subject, but to discuss ways to improve the article. As per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: "Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views."
# Off-topic material as per above, will be refactored and moved to the user namespace. See Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages;
# If editors want to discuss the subject, please use other more appropriate off-wiki fora;
# Editors interested in improving the article should endeavor to summarize the abundant new sources provided at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars;
# There is a newly published biography by Andrea Cagan that has not been explored yet and that can be used to corroborate existing material, add new material, etc.
Many editors are referring the policy of assume good faith. Such good faith can only be assumed if editors prove through their edits that they have an interest in improving this encyclopedia, rather than asserting their personal viewpoints.
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder 

message: Per WP:NOR, I am removing claims which should be excluded.
:From Jan van der Lans:"Van der Lans did not provide citations for his very critical assessment."
::Reason:"It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position".  There is no indication that van der Lans's work is uncited; the only citation given does not indicate this information.  It's fairly incredible that a research piece could be published and include no research, which is what is being claimed.  More definite proof is needed.
:From Saul V. Levine:His analysis was based on practices, such as the monastic life in ashrams, that were abandoned in the 1980s when Prem Rawat threw off anachronistic Hindu religious and cultural trappings previously associated with his message.
::Reason:"It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source".  The cited material gives no indication that the conclusions were based on abandoned practices.  Indeed, the publication date (1989) indicates that the authors would have been very aware of ongoing practices in the 1980's, as the work was released in the last year of that decade.  The author is claiming, presumably on personal speculation, that the author is speaking of practices that were no longer in place.  This is uncited research on the part of the editor, and requires credible citation from a reliable source that Levine's analysis was flawed or outdated.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mael-Num (talk • contribs) 
I have no problem with removing the text from Van der lans. But I have a problem with the removal of context for Levine's. You are very quick to spot OR on material, while introducing OR yourself as you have done in the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done no such thing, please stop accusing me of things I have not done.  Regardless of any alleged wrong doing on my part, this "context" for Levine is original research.  If it is not, then please help improve the article by citing reliable sources so that readers can determine the correct context of the criticism. Mael-Num 00:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Original Research 

message: # Mael-Num removed long standing summary of criticism, that was inserted by User:Francis Schonken (see diff. This includes the deletion of important sources and translations of sources provided by editors. You replaced it with a minority viewpoint based on one source relates to "some former members", and the viewpoint of one psychiatrist.
# Mael-Num introduced "Spirituality" that is your opinion,an unsourced statement and original research
# Mael-Num introduced "Introspective techniques", that is an unpublished synthesis, an unsourced statement and original research
# Mael-Num introduced "He also established the US chapter of Elan Vital", which is a factually inaccurate, unsourced assertion
# Mael-Num deleted in his edit valuable sources that have been researched with a lot of effort by editors of this article.
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to Andries comments,  some of the things he says are disputed, are not. Points 4 and 5, for example I do  not think that anyone disagrees with him. As for the lead's content, as per WP:LEAD we should describe any "significant controversies", and not minority viewpoints. The claims of divinity reported on the press and the denials made to the press could be included. The family rift, was also widely reported controversy and already included in the lead. That's all that needs to be summarized in the lead, besides the chronology up to today as currently summarized. The opinion of one scholar (in this case Schnabel) is not a significant viewpoint to be included in the lead, for example. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{user|Jossi}}

message: #Jossi's claim that I had removed User:Francis Schonken's work is incorrect.  User:Momento removed this information at a much earlier date see diff.  As one can plainly see by this diff, the version I edited had none of Francis Schonken's work.  Furthermore, in my effort to improve the article, I have attempted to incorporate Francis Schonken's words into the lead, as shown inthis diff.
#Jossi's other criticisms have been addressed here.  I will also add that while Jossi claims that words like "spirituality" and "introspective" are original research, he does not state why this is the case.  He also does not explain how inserting the foundation of Elan Vital US into its chronological place in the narrative is incorrect, despite the information being cited.  If some of the information should be corrected, or clarified, I think it would be best to do so, rather than dismissing and reverting the entire edit out of hand.
#Jossi and I clearly have a difference of opinion as to what should be done, and thus my request to have others help us with their insights. 
Mael-Num 00:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{user|Mael-Num}}

message: *1. Momento supports including a statement in the lead that Rawat denied claims of divinity which I think is one sided. I think that these denials should not be included unless accompanied by other quotes (for which there is little space). Examples where Rawat did not clearly deny to be divine when asked about it or addresses as divine include the following quotes
**1.1 Published by Divine Light Mission - PMT (Perfect Master Tapes) No. 171 Guru Maharaji speaking in Miami, Fla, Jan. 16th, 1981.Question on devotion and other answers. "Light Reading" Vol.1 No.1 Spring 1978
***Q:Guru Maharaj Ji, are you permanently in God-consciousness?
***A:Yes. I am permanently in God-consciousness.
***Q:Some people say you are a divine incarnation, and some people say other things about you. What's the truth?
***A:You yourself must realize the truth.
**1.2 And further from (from a question and answer session given by Guru Maharaj Ji in Portland, Oregon, June 29, 1972 
***Question: Guru Maharaj Ji, what does it feel like to be Lord of the universe?
***[..]
***Maharaji: You don't know.... Do you? When you become Lord of the Universe, you become a puppet, really! Nothing else; not 'you'. Not 'I', not 'you' no egos, no pride, nothing else. One with humbleness; servant. Very, very beautiful. Always in divine bliss. Creating your own environment - wherever you go, doesn't matter. Like my friends used to play and I used to sit right in the corner of my ground and meditate (laughter).
***She wants to change places with me! I wish I could change places with everyone, and give one hour of experience to everyone! But it's not possible"
**1.3 From Grenley, Peter Friday, 3 September 1971 News Journal, Mansfield, Ohio. "I Was A Teen-Age Guru ...Story Of Maharaji Of India" 
***"When he is specifically asked whether or not he considers himself a human, however, he pauses, as though figuring out the answer. "Yes, I am a human," he says,. finally. "Hands bone, lungs. But guru is greater than God because if you go to guru, guru will show you God."
*2.Mael-Num makes edits give undue weight to some criticism, i.e. brainwashing and mind control which is not prominent and not consistent over the years. I believe that criticism should be included in the lead, but this should be the most prominent criticism, e.g. lack of intellectual contents, and sumptuous life style. 
*3.Mael-Num is a newcomer and does not know much about the subject yet and hence his or her edits contain personal interpretations that do not stay close to the sources. Mael-Num edits should reflect modesty because of his or her lack of knowledge and s/he should not revert edits without discussion and without reading the talk pages incl. the archives. 
*4.One of the main reasons why Rawat was notable was because he was the leader of the Divine Light Mission and hence this should be retained in the lead. Jossi denies that this makes him notable, but I think his arguments are completely unconvincing and he more or less contradicts himself when he writes elsewhere that information about Rawat can be found in religious dictionaries under the entry Divine Light Mission 
*5. I also think that the title or status of Perfect Master should be retained in the lead, because that was the most prominent status or title of Rawat. 
:Andries 10:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{user|Andries}}

message: This article on Prem Rawat has effectively become an example of aggressive, self-promotion on behalf of Prem Rawat, carried out by his followers with some considerable success to them. 
Rawat's supporters have clearly used Wikipedia to bolster his credibility by dominating and influencing this article about him in his favour over a long period of time.
It is an utter waste of most other people's time trying to edit it because it is totally dominated by a core group of his ardent followers determined to eradicate all criticism they deem too unsavoury.
I and many others have repeatedly tried to edit, to include more critical and indeed, what we feel is fairer and more complete content, but our contributions and reasonings have been repeatedly over-ruled and deleted over a period of years. Personally I have no more time to waste on this fruitless exercise. I feel my only recourse now is to complain and retrire from the fray. 
It appears that the most persistent editors are, or were employed by Rawat's organisation and all are motivated to toe the party line and maintain this article according to the image Prem Rawat wants to promote. They have removed all trace of 'unsavoury' critical content to leave whitewash and incomplete references about his past teachings etc. What are predictably judged by them as 'inadequately referenced' facts are disputed so vigorously and unrelentingly that other editors simply tire and eventually give up. It is only the followers so-called 'consensus' that remains. There is always a 'Wiki' ruling at hand usually from 'senior'  Wiki Editor Jossi (also a self-confessed employee of Rawta's org)  as to why some information is unpermissable. Wiki 'correctness' as enforced ad-nauseam by Jossi over the years seems mysteriously to have yielded a very squeaky clean Pro-Rawat flavoured article.  I wonder why?  Ultimately Rawat's supporters are prepared to simply wait for other editors to literally tire and give up any resistance to their plans for this and all other Wikipedia articles that deal with Prem Rawat. What's worse is that few others in Wikipedia-land seem concerned or able to overcome this phenomenon.
In my view Wikipedia need to tighten up on this kind of long-term misuse. Their rules and guidelines are proving to have loopholes which are readily exploited by powerful groups who have the means, motives and persistence to dominate articles which promote their self interests. I note that Microsoft's attempt to dominate an article by employing a 'blogger' has been an embarrasment to Wiki-boss Wales.
I suggest that the long-term commitment shown by Rawat followers (paid or unpaid) may equally amount to unfair 'blogging'.  As a former follower myself I am perfectly aware that my contributions may be seen as biased. I only enjoined work on this article because I felt it was highly misresentative and grossly unfair on critics. I would be happier if both former and current followers were banned from editing this mess and Rawat's article could be the subject of truly impartial editing. That option has been suggested before and welcomed by me but ignored by others.  Maybe that would be a solution to consider. And Jossi don't you dare move my comments off this page!PatW 23:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article does not need to be fair or unfair to critics, Pat. This article, as per Wikipedia policies, need to present what reliable sources say about the subject. And that is what we have been doing. We have researched and found hundreds of sources upon which this article has been created over the last two and a half years. If the result is not of your liking, you can join in and help make it better. But to dismiss the hard work on many editors on the basis that are editors that care about an accurate article on the subject, is in my view, inappropriate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion to improve this article

message: Just in time to participate in a revert war!  Coincidence? Mael-Num 00:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you're saying you came here with the sole purpose of reverting my work? Mael-Num 01:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Return of VictorO! 

message: Jossi, why did change my neutral, factually accurate edit in the Margaret Singer section?  If an organisation is disbanded, it no longer exists.  Some aspects of DLM, such as the ashrams, were disbanded, but the organisation itself was not.  I'll give you a chance to explain before I re-correct the text. --John Brauns 07:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: John, you may want to read WP:ATT so that you can be better informed about our core policies. The term "disbanded" has been used by several scholars. In this context it does mean the closure of the DLM headquarters, the dramatic downsizing in personnel, the abandonment of religious trappings, etc. The paragraph now provides the necessary source and context.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DLM not disbanded 

message: I have summarized a few salient points from Geaves papers ((See Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars, feedback would be appreciated. There is more work to do to incorporate other scholar material from there, but I think that taking one step at a time is best as it allows other editors to comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summarizing scholars opinion 

message: Surely its publisher is reliable?  Surely it's not purely promotional?  Surely it's been subject to independent editorial overview?  Surely an independent entity stands between author and publication?
Well, as someone recently observed: "I am sure that every single criticism of Rawat in the book, every failure of his noted in the book, every mistake of his and every character and personality defect detailed in the book are true".
Hmmmmmmm.  Trouble is - where are those criticisms?  Where's the balance?  Where's the track record of this first-time publisher? (Mighty River Press)
Couldn't be a vanity piece, could it?  Of course not.  Wiki's criteria are far too lax to let it deserve that definition.
Revera 22:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the comments made by non-involved editors in the RfC above.  Yes, the book is sympathetic to PR, so what? That in itself is no grounds for dismissing  material from that book. Is there any specific citation from that book that has been used in the article that bothers you? If so, please describe it, so that it can be addressed. You can check these citations by reviewing the Reference section and clicking on the caret, so check what sentence the source is referring to. We have used that source in half-dozen places so far, so that should be easy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That information about Geaves is already included in this article, as per the source provided. As for the self-published possibility, see WP:SELFPUB. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Pat, Cagan's book makes it clear that he was one of the early students and still is. We can use that as a source. You cannot just say that in his article without a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also note, that the association with Totapuri, is not just Geaves'. This information is also sourced to an early version of Prem Rawat's personal website. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem Pat, is that we cannot synthesize material and arrive to specific conclusions (See WP:OR. All we can do, as we have done in the article, is to present the information, such as the info about lineage in PR's website (is in the techniques of K section) as well as the opinion of Geaves. If there is such contradiction, that is left to the reader to reach that conclusion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not accept Mighty River Press/Andrea Cagan's new book as being reliable?  Then again, why? 

message: Per Merriam-Webster: 
;Follower: one that follows the opinions or teachings of another. Synonyms PARTISAN mean one who gives full loyalty and support to another. FOLLOWER may apply to people who attach themselves either to the person or beliefs of another <an evangelist and his followers>. ADHERENT suggests a close and persistent attachment <adherents to Marxism>. DISCIPLE implies a devoted allegiance to the teachings of one chosen as a master <disciples of Gandhi>. PARTISAN suggests a zealous often prejudiced attachment <partisans of the President>.
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing inherently wrong with the word "premie", or with the term "follower", or with the term "student", "discpiple", or "adherent", why should it be? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I would be very surprised if that was true. I remember an open letter  (now off-line but still available on the internet archive: ) in which he stated the contrary. In Cagan's book he name is on the index: Geaves, Ron, 109–112, 114–116, 133, 153, 156, 172, 181, 237, 302, so I do not think that your concern are substantiated. Maybe you are mistaken in your assessment of Geaves? In a any case this is not pertinent to this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure. I think that the fact is not disputed, he speaks about it in the open letter, and it is implied in Cagan's book. Please add. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same definitions

message: Some how "Scholarly opinions and criticism" has been summarised in the lead as one sentence of pure criticism. Since many scholars have positive things to say the sentence is obviously totally biased. Momento 09:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for the removal of that sentence is not about balance, but about undue weight as argued previously. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong again M-N & PatW. A controversy is a "disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated"! When has Rawat been involved in a "prolonged, public, and heated disagreement"? The only "prolonged disagreement" was his break up with his family and it wasn't "public or heated". And we can only find half a dozen, usually Christian, scholars who have made mild criticism in over 40 years. There have been no controversies.Momento 20:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with PatW here, and I'd only like to add that charges of brainwashing and mind control are, indeed, contentious and controversial.  I can't imagine how someone would genuinely see it as otherwise.  Indeed, the goal isn't 50% positive and 50% negative attention, as can be seen by the fact that only a handful of lines out of a four paragraph lead are devoted to the negatives.  The goal of including this criticism is to give a reader who only has time to peruse the lead an idea of the content of the whole article.  To omit the full summary, citing the material from sources such as The Washington Post, is to fail to give the negative attention its due weight. Mael-Num 21:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I used the Oxford American Dictionary. You'll note your definition of controversy  as" a matter of opinion over which parties actively disagree, argue, or debate", has Rawat "actively disagreed, argued, or debated" with his critics? I don't think so. And the emphasis on "wrangle, strife and quarrel", can you find Rawat engaged in any of these? And whilst brainwashing and mind control might be contentious and controversial,  James Lewis writing that "a number of ex-members became critics of the movement, attacking it with charges of brainwashing and mind control", doesn't make a controversy. It is merely one sentence in an encyclopedia in which a scholar has noted some people's opinion about a movement (not Rawat). It doesn't deserve to be in the article, let alone inh the lead.Momento 21:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, to summarize PatW, this particular refinement of the meaning of 'controversy' does not reflect the requirements of Wikipedia.  The objective of a lead section is to give a summary of what is given in greater detail elsewhere in the article.  It's a "short version" of the subject for people who don't want to read the whole thing.  To exclude the references to PR's involvement in charges of brainwashing and/or mind control is to give undue weight, by omitting a notable fact that is found elsewhere in the article.  This is not proper style, per WP:LS  Mael-Num 22:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The "brainwashing and mind control" comment is one line in the scholars section of 211 lines. It represents less than .5% of the scholars section.
And it is not even a comment by a scholar! And you think leaving it out of the lead is "undue weight". Thank God for Wiki rules.Momento 01:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  "Thank God for Wiki rules."  We don't discard relevant and notable information just because, in one editor's opinion, the tons of padding given to other "scholarly opinion" (such as current adherants of Rawat's teachings) surround it. The guideline is to include any relevant criticisms.   As this particular element of criticism is long-standing, it has passed muster for relevance.  The rules therefore state it should be included, and as you seem to agree, let's play by the rules. Mael-Num 01:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Incorrect. Nowhere in WP:LS does it "state it should be included".Momento 02:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should read the paragraph that notes if there are any notable controversies, to summarize them.  Mael-Num 06:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: M-N, maybe you should read your own paragraph. You clearly wrote that the WP:LS "guideline is to include any relevant criticisms", which is untrue. And that is what I was responding to.Momento 06:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I see the source of your confusion.  I wasn't directly quoting the article, and instead you should read for context.  Mael-Num 08:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, Rawat does need to be involved in a controversy about him, ootherwise it is a debate with only one debator. The ex-premies aren't a controversy, nor is being listed on cult sites along with the Amish and TM. The fact that he and everyone else ignores the ex-premies is testament to the lack of "notable controversy". And the legal proceedings were about illegal use of stolen material not a "controversy".Momento 01:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're moving goalposts to better suit your views.  To claim that, because one possible cherry-picked definition of "controversy" can be narrowly interpreted to require that there is some sort of documented debate in order to be a controversy is patently absurd.  Mael-Num 06:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's the problem with debate? It is a common synonym which appeared in the three definitions that PatW put forward. It must be PatW who did the "cherry picking". Other synonyms include - dispute, disagree, argue, disagreement, altercation, contention, wrangle, strife and quarrel. Rawat hasn't been involved in any of these activities with anyone.Momento 06:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "What's the problem with debate?"  Thesaurus much?  Okay, here's a serious question: Do you know what a straw man argument is?  Because this whole spiel you replied with is a perfect example.  I'm not going to fence with you on semantics.  Just understand this: the relevance of controversy, in this case, is that scholars whose opinions are valid enough to be given already exist in the text of the article.  We don't need Rawat to debate these critics in an open forum in order to cite them, as plainly seen by their continued inclusion, despite editors like yourself attempting to have their opinions removed from the article.  Furthermore, given that this criticism exists in the body of the article, it is wikipedia style to give a summary of said criticism in the lead.  Playing this "Controversy?  What controversy?" game is getting a bit tiresome.  The rules are clear, and so is the controversy.  Read, and re-read until you see it for yourself. Mael-Num 08:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scholars summary

message: Some editors have asked about additional sources for this article. Any sources that can improve the article are welcome, providing that these are compliant with WP policies. Asking for a blanket approval of a number sources, is not doable, as each source needs to be assessed in the context on the edit being proposed. Bring a new a source, discuss it, etc, as we have done quite successfully at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars. 
As it relates to self-published sources, and in response to Maria C and Mael conversation above, note that self-published sources are acceptable if published by the subject of the article, within the caveats and limitations explained in WP:SELFPUB. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's true.  Some of the more important ones to point out are that the publication "is not contentious", "is not unduly self-serving", "does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject", and "is primarily based on reliable sources independent of the subject of the [publication]".  Again, as you pointed out, it's best to take these things on a case-by-case basis, but these guidelines should give us a good idea of what will pass muster, and what will not. Mael-Num 20:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The use of additional sources 

message: This information was reported by The Washington Post, reporting on a US Congressional Panel that found DLM to be a "manipulative cult".  The phrase has been picked up by Time, The Rocky Mountain News, and others.  This information takes up a full subsection of the article.  I feel that it is important to give, at least a passing reference to the determination of Congress and the reports of these many journals.  The wording I had used previously was very brief, so as to appraise the reader of them, but not to dwell or give undue weight.  "Rawat's affiliate organizations have been described as 'manipulative cults'" in the brief paragraph on criticisms, or something of the sort.  Here's a diff to what I had done in the past. Mael-Num 19:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manipulative Cults 

message: As  above, the charges of mind control and brainwashing put forth by their respective sources should be cited to put Rawat into a proper context for the reader who is only able to take the time to read the lead.  Information about a subject shouldn't be buried 20 paragraphs deep into an article. Mael-Num 19:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mind Control 

message: This article does not meet good article criterian, in my opinion.  However, as I have contributed, (though albeit not "significantly) to the article in the past, I will not remove it myself from Good Article listing.  This is how the article, as of March 10, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
#Well written? - Awkward structuring, inadequate Lead section which does not summarize full content of article, and is too lengthy in other areas.
#Factually accurate/verifiable? - Is factually accurate and verifiable in most cases, however article should cut down on high-number of references/citations which ultimately come from Prem Rawat or Rawat-affiliated organizations as source.
#Broad in coverage? - Not broad enough in coverage, criticism section should be standalone section, expanded upon.  More information needs to be given regarding conflict/falling out with other members of family.  Lawsuits against critics in order to attempt to remove information from the internet not covered at all.
#Written from Neutral Point of View? - Fails Neutral Point of View, slanted bias towards article's subject.  Article would be written much differently if written from POV of independent source, i.e. coverage in media/journalistic tack.  
#Article stability? - Fails stability, changes and is subject of edit wars and proposals to split/merge content.
#Images? - Does contain images, released from Prem Rawat Foundation directly.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration.  Thanks for your work so far.  Smee 22:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Smee, but I would have preferred another reviewer that has not edited this or other related articles as you did. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have stated my objection about this review at Wikipedia:Good_article_candidates. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would also like to point out, that this article has been peer reviewed twice:  Review 1 and Review 2 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries.  Hopefully other reviewers will comment as well.  I have responded on the review page.  Smee 23:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Pat: Smee was involved in this and several articles quite extensively. As such, his "review" is not such. The article was peer reviewed and all comments of the reviewers were addressed. The article is now on GA candidacy, and that my attract uninvolved editors that can assist with improving this article. As for your ongoing accusations, which I have been politely asking you to desist from making them, I ask you yet again: don't. If there are areas of this article that need improving, let us collaborate in doing so. There is no reason why we could not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pat: - You do raise some interesting good points, that not surprisingly, others have raised in the past as well...  Smee 00:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Points which are not helping neither Pat's arguments, nor this article. How many times one have to say "let's collaborate in making this article better"?  Or is it just an argument for the sake of argumentation? I simply do not get it. Each and every editor that has come to contribute to this article, has been welcomed and any concerns addressed. We have requested third opinions via requests for comments when we could not find common ground, some uninvolved editors have come along and made useful contributions, such as the merger that took place in January, etc. To state otherwise is simply not factual. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The material of "ex-premies" was not deleted by me or by Momento. That material was deleted by other editors due to the simple fact that it was unattributed opinion not available in published sources. What we were left with, was criticism published by scholars that have studied the subject and wrote about it. Could it be, Pat, that your assessment is based on lack of information about the history of this article? Obviously it is, as this example demonstrates. That is why you keep making ungrounded assessments about my role in this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The status quo, Pat, is that as with any other article in Wikipedia, the article describes what reliable sources have to say about a subject. If you have such sources available that are not already been used, these are most welcome. You could start by summarizing some of the sources that have been researched and placed at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, you omit to mention that the status quo is determined among others by your double standards in assessing the reliability of sources. Your support for including Abdrea Cagan's positive book while support for excluding a rather critical article in the Washington Post is a clear example of this. Andries 11:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are getting really good at straw man arguments, Andries. (a) A source has to be evaluated in the context of the claim made. (b) the source discussed was not the WP, but two people with an ax-to grind making outrageous comments to a WP journalist. You chose to add some and omit other comments from these people because otherwise their credibility will be shot to pieces by their own statements. (c) Cagan's book has been used so far to provide supporting material for basic information such as names of PR's children. So, when you speak about sources, please remember to speak about authors, as you have a tendency to forget one at the expense of the other. Also, when you speak about sources.  do not make generalizations, but address specific material use from these sources. As for your comments about "double-standards", I do not believe you are in any position to make such type of assessments of other editors. Take a hint, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Momento, you are very strict about Wikipedia guidelines and policies only if a statement in the entry contradicts your POV. The good article review voiced some of my repeated objections against your edits, for example, the re-organization by you of the criticism section per scholar/source. Andries 11:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Good question. Andries 11:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fails "good article" criteria 

message: ;Factually accurate/verifiable: 
The article has 138 citations based on more than 50 sources, of which only a handful are sourced to related organizations
;Images :
There is nothing wrong in using images placed in the public domain by a related organization. 
;Written from Neutral Point of View:
As per the abundant third-party, scholarly sources, this article describe what these sources have to say about the subject
;Broad in coverage :
There is a full section on criticism, see Prem_Rawat#Scholarly_opinions_and_criticism. Abundant sources as per above
;Article stability :
I agree that at this point there is an ogoing discussion about improving the article further. That should be no grounds for not evaluating GA status. The merger was accomplished on January 19.
;Well written :
this article has been peer reviewed twice:  Review 1 and Review 2 and all suggestions for improvement accepted and worked on.
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pat: Smee was involved in this and several articles quite extensively. As such, his "review" is not such. The article was peer reviewed and all comments of the reviewers were addressed. The article is now on GA candidacy, and that my attract uninvolved editors that can assist with improving this article. As for your ongoing accusations, which I have been politely asking you to desist from making them, I ask you yet again: don't. If there are areas of this article that need improving, let us collaborate in doing so. There is no reason why we could not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pat: - You do raise some interesting good points, that not surprisingly, others have raised in the past as well...  Smee 00:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Points which are not helping neither Pat's arguments, nor this article. How many times one have to say "let's collaborate in making this article better"?  Or is it just an argument for the sake of argumentation? I simply do not get it. Each and every editor that has come to contribute to this article, has been welcomed and any concerns addressed. We have requested third opinions via requests for comments when we could not find common ground, some uninvolved editors have come along and made useful contributions, such as the merger that took place in January, etc. To state otherwise is simply not factual. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The material of "ex-premies" was not deleted by me or by Momento. That material was deleted by other editors due to the simple fact that it was unattributed opinion not available in published sources. What we were left with, was criticism published by scholars that have studied the subject and wrote about it. Could it be, Pat, that your assessment is based on lack of information about the history of this article? Obviously it is, as this example demonstrates. That is why you keep making ungrounded assessments about my role in this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The status quo, Pat, is that as with any other article in Wikipedia, the article describes what reliable sources have to say about a subject. If you have such sources available that are not already been used, these are most welcome. You could start by summarizing some of the sources that have been researched and placed at Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, you omit to mention that the status quo is determined among others by your double standards in assessing the reliability of sources. Your support for including Abdrea Cagan's positive book while support for excluding a rather critical article in the Washington Post is a clear example of this. Andries 11:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are getting really good at straw man arguments, Andries. (a) A source has to be evaluated in the context of the claim made. (b) the source discussed was not the WP, but two people with an ax-to grind making outrageous comments to a WP journalist. You chose to add some and omit other comments from these people because otherwise their credibility will be shot to pieces by their own statements. (c) Cagan's book has been used so far to provide supporting material for basic information such as names of PR's children. So, when you speak about sources, please remember to speak about authors, as you have a tendency to forget one at the expense of the other. Also, when you speak about sources.  do not make generalizations, but address specific material use from these sources. As for your comments about "double-standards", I do not believe you are in any position to make such type of assessments of other editors. Take a hint, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Momento, you are very strict about Wikipedia guidelines and policies only if a statement in the entry contradicts your POV. The good article review voiced some of my repeated objections against your edits, for example, the re-organization by you of the criticism section per scholar/source. Andries 11:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Good question. Andries 11:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unpacking this review

message: I would remove the material in bold
Rawat was born in India where he attended the Catholic-run St. Joseph's Academy elementary school in Dehra Dun. He was the fourth and youngest son of Shri Hans Ji Maharaj and his second wife, Jagat Janani Mata Shri Rajeshwari Devi.[14][15] At the age of three he began speaking about fulfillment, love, and peace at his father's meetings.[16]  In these early days, Rawat was known both as Sant Ji[17] and as Balyogeshwar.[18] and when he was six years old, his father taught him the techniques of Knowledge, including young Prem among his other students. In 1966, at age eight, Rawat succeeded to the role of Satguru and leadership of the DLM upon the death of his father, which was unusual since it was not in accordance with Hindu tradition of primogeniture.[19][20] His family told American reporters during the early 1970s that Shri Hans was away from home at the time of his death, and that shortly beforehand he had written a letter home to his family essentially naming Rawat as his successor. There is a witness account by Shri Hans' personal driver which refers to Shri Hans' request for Prem to succeed him.[21] Speaking much like his father, he took the stage and assured those that mourned his father death, that the master would always be with them and that he would continue his father's work.[22] His succession was generally accepted when the crowd responded to him as their teacher.[23][24] Afterwards, his mother and brothers came on stage to pay their respects to him.[25]
'''
Rawat remained in India for five more years, continuing to offer the Knowledge his father had championed. In the late 1960s, a small number of young Western seekers, many of them hippies, had come across Rawat at his home in Dehra Dun. Several of them asked Rawat to visit the West, where, they said, many young people would be interested in what he had to offer. In October 1969 he sent a mahatma to London to begin teaching Knowledge on his behalf. In 1970 many of his new Western followers traveled to India to see and hear him and were present when he announced at a gathering at India Gate in Delhi that he was ready to begin the task of bringing peace to the world. This gathering of 1,000,000 people on 8 November, was reported to be one of the largest ever in the history of New Delhi and was the culmination of an 18-mile-long procession.[26]
According to the Dutch religious scholar and minister Reender Kranenborg, this speech called the Peace Bomb marked the start of the Maharaji's mission to the West.[27]
Momento 01:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? I can see no good reason. Andries 14:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Childhood in India

message: And whilst I'm at it, I would remove the material in bold. I would keep this section for chronological facts and any material regarding his teaching ashrams, scholars opinions would be in a new section "Teachings of Prem Rawat" which would replace "Techniques of Knowledge".
Rawat first came to the West during his school holidays on 17 June 1971, visiting the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada. He traveled without his family and reported that he arrived with only twenty-five pounds sterling in his pocket.[28] He was interviewed by the BBC and spoke at the first Glastonbury Festival, where he again offered people peace. Rawat made brief trips to Paris and Heidelberg, Germany, and on 17 July flew to Los Angeles and began a tour of American cities.[29]
Rawat returned to India in October to commemorate his father's birthday having first established the US Divine Light Mission, or DLM, in September 1971 in Denver, Colorado. In 1972, Rawat returned to the West, this time accompanied by his mother and eldest brother, Satpal, and an entourage of mahatmas and other supporters. That year DLM held a multi-day event at Montrose, Colorado at which two thousand people attended.
In November 1973, DLM booked the Houston Astrodome for a three-day gathering coinciding with Shri Hans' birthday called "Millennium '73".[30] The attendance was estimated at twenty thousand and according to Thomson Gale, "the rapidly developing movement ran into trouble, beginning with its inability to fill the Houston Astrodome in a highly publicized event."[31][32] Rennie Davis, a former member of the Chicago Seven, was a prominent spokesman for the group at that event.[33] By the early 1970s, DLM was operating in South America, North America, Europe, and Australia and had established ashrams, whose members were required to take a vow of poverty, chastity, and obedience.[34][35][36]
In 1974, DLM was reporting that 60,000 individuals were practicing the techniques of Knowledge in the United Kingdom and "it was a successful movement because it stressed access to the inner world, the attainment of peace and certainty ( 'leave no room for doubt in your mind'), direct experience of God within and the use of guaranteed methods".[37]
In May 1974 at age sixteen, Rawat married Marolyn Johnson, a twenty-five year old flight attendant and one of his early American students,[38]. According to Cagan, Rawat named her at the wedding in keeping with Indian tradition, after the Hindu Goddess Durga. [39] The marriage to a Westerner apparently precipitated a rift between Prem and his mother,[40] for what she described as his pursuit of a "despicable, nonspiritual way of life."[41] Rawat took control of the Western DLM away from them, and his mother disowned him and returned to India with two of his brothers. His mother gained control of DLM India through legal means and appointed the eldest brother, Satpal, as leader of the DLM in India. The other two brothers split in allegiance, one siding with Prem and one siding with Satpal. Most of the mahatmas in the West either returned to India with his mother or were fired. Rawat later commented to the press on the family rift, saying "They live in India and I think [my mother] was upset that I married a foreigner. She thought I had married out of my caste or something like that."[42]
According to an article in the 1979 Sociological Review, Maharaj Ji was financially independent through the generosity of his devotees and this allowed him to follow the lifestyle of an American millionaire, support his family and finance close officials and mahatmas on their frequent trips around the globe.[43]
During these years, claims of divinity made by the Indian mahatmas, his family, and some followers were reported by the media.[44][45] Kranenborg wrote in a 1982 article that "in Maharaj ji's satsangs one can notice a speaking style that resembles very much some Christian evangelization campaigns: a pressing request, an emphasis on the last possibility to choose before it is too late and a terminology in which one is requested to surrender to the Lord, in this case Maharaj ji himself."[46]The American religious scholar J. Gordon Melton wrote in 1986 that, "[..]Maharaj Ji, as do many of the other Sant Mat leaders, claims to be a Perfect Master, an embodiment of God on earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration."[47]Rawat denied claims to be divine in several interviews given to the press and on television.[48][49] In 1971 he had said that yes, he is human (with) hands, bone (and) lungs but that "guru is greater than God because if you go to guru, guru will show you God".[50]
In an autobiographical book by an early follower who was quite involved with the DLM in the early 70s, Sophia Collier writes, "There are those who sincerely believe that Guru Maharaj Ji is the Lord of Creation here in the flesh to save the world. And then there are those who know him a little better than that. They relate to him in a more human way... to them he is more of a teacher, a guide, a co-conspirator in their personal pursuit of a more heavenly way of life.".[51]
According to Stephen J Hunt, a professor of sociology, the major focus of Rawat is on stillness, peace, and contentment within the individual, and his 'Knowledge' consists of the techniques to obtain them. Knowledge, roughly translated, means the happiness of the true self-understanding. Each individual should seek to comprehend his or her true self. In turn, this brings a sense of well-being, joy, and harmony as one comes in contact with one's "own nature."[52] The first posters about Rawat in the early 1970s said, “Meditation is not what you think.” At that time, Rawat was already making a distinction between the "mind", which he described as including the dark or negative thoughts that a person may have, and "heart", the place within each person where peace can be found. Lans and Derks wrote that according to Maharaj Ji, "all evil should be attributed to the mind", and that such concept of mind indicates the obstacle of freeing oneself from former bonds, referring primarily to a "state of consciousness characterized by everything but passive, nonrational confidence and trust."[53] In the 1970s Rawat spoke in more than twenty countries and received the keys to the cities of New York City, New Orleans, Monterey, Oakland, Detroit, Miami, and Macon, Georgia in the United States, and Kyoto, Japan.[54]
Scholastic material about the ashram, divinity, teachings etc would be found in "Teaching of PR" Momento 01:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly opppose removal of sourced scholarly material from Kranenborg and Melton. I have stated this many times and I do not think that I should repeat and repeat this. Andries 14:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The 1970s

message: I would remove the material in bold. I would keep this section for chronological facts and any material regarding his teaching ashrams, scholars opinions would be in a new section "Teachings of Prem Rawat" which would replace "Techniques of Knowledge".
The 1980s and 1990s
Rawat returned to India in October 1980 for the first time since 1975, and spoke to over 38,000 students in Delhi on newly acquired land.
He returned to South America for events for the first time since 1976, and visited Mexico for the first time. He continued to hold large, multi-day events for his students in Cartagena (Colombia), Miami, Rome, London, New Delhi, and Kansas City (Missouri). Other cities where he spoke included Cancun (Mexico), Lima, Sao Paulo, and Leicester (UK). He obtained a private pilot’s license and began training to obtain certifications and ratings for operating various types of aircraft.
For a time around 1980, the center of operations moved to Miami, where activities included a project known as DECA. DECA was concerned with the customization of a Boeing 707 intended for Rawat's work, and the development of a commercial executive aircraft refurbishing facility. During 1981, Rawat flew the 707 to forty different cities and spoke on 120 separate occasions. He crisscrossed North America four times that year, touring South America, Europe, India, Nepal, Australia, New Zealand, and Malaysia. The DECA business was later sold to Aircraft Modular Products (AMP), a leader in the field of business jet interiors which which in turn was sold in 1998 to B/E aerospace for $118 US million.[55]
The Encyclopedia of American Religions describes that in the early 1980s Rawat personally renounced the trappings of Indian culture and religion, and disbanded the DLM, to make his teachings independent of culture, religious beliefs, and lifestyles.[13] Other scholars, such as Kranenborg, George D. Chryssides and Ron Geaves also described a departure from divine connotations.[56][57] Rawat continued delivering the four techniques of Knowledge which, according to Chryssides, afford self-understanding and self-realization, in a manner that is independent of culture and not bound to the traditions of India.[58]
' James V. Downton, in his 1979 book Sacred Journeys, writes that in 1976 the majority of premies saw Rawat primarily as their "spiritual teacher, guide, and inspiration", and quit imputing great powers to him, assuming more responsibility for their own personal growth. He asserts that, since the beginning, Rawat appealed to his followers to give up beliefs and concepts, so that they could experience the Knowledge more fully, but that it did not prevent followers from adopting a "a fairly rigid set of ideas about his divinity and the coming of a new age."[59]
In the early 1980s the late Margaret Singer included the DLM in the list of groups she studied. In 1979, Singer mentioned the Divine Light Movement as one of a set of groups that have "intense relationships between followers and a powerful idea or leader", in an article in Psychology Today.[60]
In 1983 the Western ashrams were closed and the Divine Light Mission changed its name to Elan Vital.[61][62] The video production organization was renamed "Visions International,"[63] and it began producing video versions of Rawat's addresses. According to America's Alternative Religions, during the 1980s, Rawat stepped away from the image of himself as a "Perfect Master" and dropped the title "Guru Maharaj Ji" in favor of "Maharaji". He continued to appear to audiences as Maharaji, a teacher, and established a minimal organization called Elan Vital. In this new role, "he may be reaching more listeners than ever, especially abroad, but his role is that of a public speaker, and the original religious movement is essentially defunct."[64] An article published on 4 December 1987 in The Times of India, describes Rawat's mission as involving international tours during which he explains to "people in general without any distinction of caste, color, race, stature, or wealth that the source of happiness, peace and contentment lies within one's own self. [...] He is trying to prepare humanity to face and overcome the present day tussle and turmoil prevailing in the world in the name of achieving world peace, on individual basis. In fact what Maharaj Ji is trying to do is not being comprehended by most of the people, with the results that he is included in the category of those persons who have become mere machines to collect wealth, while Maharaj Ji has taken a pledge to complete this huge task without any monetary consideration."[65]
Rawat continued to tour extensively in the 1980s and 1990s, most often at the controls of a series of executive jets leased for his use. He held multi-day events in over 40 countries and in 1990 he spoke at over 50 public events all over the world. In December 1998, Rawat spoke via a live, interactive global satellite broadcast from an event in Pasadena, California, to 86,600 participants in 173 locations in 50 countries. In 1999 his message started being broadcast on a regular basis via satellite to North American cities with similar initiatives in other regions and countries.
.Momento 01:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that you refrain from editing out anything, Momento, until a concensus is reached between editors.  What's the rush?  Sylviecyn 09:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1980s/90s

message: I removed :Category:Gurus and :Category:Hindu gurus, as per the article content. Regarding [[[:Category:Charismatic religious leaders]], that category is based on Webber's classification of charismatic authority, upon one mention in a source. Categories  cannot assert something as a fact unless, there is wide consensus of sources. See WP:NPOV#Undue weight. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many,many  sources who label Rawat as a guru. There are two three sources for charismatic leaders i.e. Dupertuis and Schnabel.  Andries 20:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot McGuire's "Religion: the social context" pages 175, 335 (definition of charisma). Andries 11:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: So what. Categories are not designed to "label" people, Andries. See Wikipedia:Categorization of people ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Andries.  Many sources refer to him as a guru, he is a guru but he dropped the name.  Same for charasmatic leaders.  He's considered a charasmatic leader by many sources.  Sylviecyn 01:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: New heading to help navigation.Momento 23:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue, Pat, is not only the availability of these sources, if what you say about being available for consultation in UK libraries is true (And I trust you that it is). The issue is the use of primary sources in articles. We can extract a quote here and there, but that is all. Otherwise you will be violating the policy of no original research. "So", you would say, "we can quote from these primary sources, can't we?" Not really... As you cannot publish the complete magazine, you will need to select what to quote. And when you do that, you (or I, or any other editor) could simply selectively cite one sentence instead of another, and by that fact assert a specific POV about what PR was saying, and without its context. That is why in in Wikipedia it is said  "use primary sources with caution". When using secondary sources, what we are doing is taking the research of notable authors and report their viewpoints, under the assumption that they have read the primary sources available and made their synthesis of them in their published work. You may want to become familiar with WP:ATT#Reliable_sources, in which these distinctions are explored. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: So, if you read it all, you may have understood the reason for caution. Balance as it pertains to Wikipedia articles, cannot be based on interpretations and/or selectively citing primary sources. When citing secondary sources, we use footnotes to provide the material cited. That, of course, cannot apply to primary sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What selected bits are missing from  Downton (check Talk:Prem Rawat/scholars)? I have the book and can add them if you wish. Downton's book is widely available, not just available in a college University in Ireland or Scotland. A direct link to that library would be useful if we quote from these 4 magazines listed there, but we still have the problem of quoting a primary source, without readers having easy access to the full text as in the case of secondary sources that are widely available. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pat, as I'm sure you are aware, there are primary sources currently linked throughout this article as it stands.  Examples of those are:  the Elan Vital website, The Prem Rawat Foundation website, Prem Rawat/Maharaji's personal website, The Keys website, and all other current websites that support Prem Rawat in the present day.  Therefore, there is not any logical argument that the same organization, Divine Light Mission (since renamed Elan Vital) and it's publications cannot also be used through your excellent library system.  I'm quite amazed at the treasure trove of these materials held in the UK.  Obviously you will use these sources with good balance.  Good work!  Sylviecyn 09:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I loved your Time addition. I guess this why a serious article would prefer scholar's opinions.Momento 10:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I was just referring to the link you placed above which showed just four or five items. The British Library may carry a few issues, but  I have not checked. Nevertheless,  my argument about primary sources, stand. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I will check Dowtons' book. As for the material you want to add, as I said before, sure, bring it and it can be discussed as we are discussing any other material, with the caveat of caution as per policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Still moving

message: Before anything else, I'd ask people to stay frosty, be polite and be friendly. Besides, we know he's a false kchugihuffer because he has failed to recognize Her Unseen Colourfulness. ;o) (That is, lighten up a little.)
WP:RS tells us:
Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident published in a newspaper, and the White House's summary of a president's speech are primary sources. Primary source material that has been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of attribution in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse primary sources. The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47) for his followers, because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted. Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.
So, primary sources are acceptable but caution must be exercised in their use, due to their potential for abuse. In light of that, I propose a set of guidelines for using them in this article.
Primary sources from the subject, or the subject's organizations must:
#Be easily available from an official site (AND/OR)
#Be easily available from an academic site (AND/OR)
#Be easily available in public libraries
When using primary sources, editors should avoid:
#Presenting a conclusion, implicitly or explicitly, based on the material
#Interjecting interpretations of the source material
#Using the material to explicitly or implicity support an opinion
#Using the source out context (Cherry-picking quotations, placing undue weight on selection portions of the source, et cetera)
When primary sources are used, editors should:
#Provide a plain and neutral description of the source
#Use a plain and neutral description of the content of the source
#Only use quotations when consensus indicates they stay clear of the avoid criteria.
I think if the matter of primary sources is approached in this way that the main concerns of all sides can be addressed. We would not be "censoring" information then, but would work within some clear guidelines. We would not be "abusing" sources, because there are clear guidelines to guide the process. Thoughts? Vassyana 11:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary sources