Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 13

message: Can you please proved the quote in Dutch, so that I can get it professionally translated? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ 00:57, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
:page 55-56 Reender Kranenborg "Eastern faith movements in the West/Oosterse geloofsbewegingen in het Westen"
::(begin paragraph)"Maharaj ji staat zonder meer centraal. Uit alle boeken, brochures en toespraken blijkt dat het belangrijkste is dat hij de ware meester is , dat alleen hij de 'kennis' kan geven en dat men zich volledig aan hem moet overgeven. In de loop der jaren zien we dat de persoon van de goeroe steeds meer centraal komt te staan. Ook de uitspraken van Maharaj ji over zichzelf lijken steeds verder te gaan: steeds meer wordt hij zich ervan bewust hoe groot zijn goddelijkheid is. ' Ik leer ze gewoon perfectie en daarom noemen ze mij de perfecte meester. En ik ben ook werkelijk de perfecte meester, want ik kan de vrede onthullen. Ik kan deze vrede onthullen die perfect is ', zegt de goeroe over zichzelf. '  Guru Maharaji is degene die de werkelijke naam van God geeft. Niemand anders heeft die kracht ' en ' Er hangt een dun gordijn tussen onszelf en de Vader. Het is maar een heel dun gordijn en dit gordijn kan alleen maar opgetild worden door diegene die de autoriteit heeft om dat te doen. Dit gordijn kan alleen worden opgetild door de perfecte meester ' (continues with more quotes)
:Andries 01:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dutch quote 

message: Buchert 02:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Whom It May Concern - Thanks for the Referencing Help 

message: Bukhert: please do not vandalize images uploaded. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ 06:57, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
: I certainly didn't "vandalize" or dim the image that image. I lightened it up a little so a better image of Prem Rawat was available to the public.  I will re-upload the lightened image if you have no objection. The orginal one was far too dark to see his features adequately.
Can we place both images on the page so that people can decide which gives a better likeness?
Buchert 21:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Righto, I'll check it on some other monitors first.
Buchert 21:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalizing image 

message: I have cut the following quote from the introduction as there is no dispute about the names and honorifics that were been given to Mr Rawat in his early years or what he prefers to call himself now. It adds no important information and there is much important information to be added.
In his book Clarity  he says:
My parents named me Prem Rawat. Since then, many people have given me many names. When as a child, I started addressing audiences in India, those who came to listen to me called me Maharaji. Over the years as I have traveled, people on different continents have continued to give me different names, affectionately expressing respect and appreciation. To me, what matters has always been the joy, clarity and peace I can bring through what I offer.
Buchert 21:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Buchert, I think that the uninformative quote was too long. May be we could shorten it to "To me, what matters has always been the joy, clarity and peace I can bring through what I offer." Andries 21:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Andries, I don't think there is any reason to put that quote in at the beginning/introduction of the article. If at some appropriate point in the page it is appropriate to mention Mr Rawat's attiotude to his life then add it in there.
Buchert 21:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

text: move it to wikiquote I would suggest. The long quote in the beginning that is is hardly informative is quite bad style and inappropriate. Andries 22:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Well jossi I am happy to include Mr Rawat's views on many important issues. However, that little piece has no place in the introduction and is just a piece of self-published vanity puffery. I believe the issues re his name were already settled and I am happy to go along with the status quo. Buchert 23:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing Quote 

message: Hi Andries, I agree that this page is a mere rehash of existing material and should not be cited. Cite the original sources if you wish to use any of that material.
Buchert 21:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  University of VA Page 

message: In the section First Trip to the West many of Bob Mishler's earliest beliefs about Mr Rawat have been included with no mention of the evolution of Mr Mishler's ideas as he came to know the young Mr Rawat better. I believe it is inappropriate to use selective quotes from a source that give a false picure of that source's ideas. I amsure you will have comments.
Buchert 21:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Before you make such edits, I would encourage you to read the discussion about the VfD, the consensus version and the debate about merging articles. Also, please sign your comments and please do not create a new section for each of your comments. Thanks. --ZappaZ  21:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have added controversial quotes from Bob Mishler 

message: it gets boring to always revert that stuff. The items brought forward by RichardG and Jossi are getting "suddenly" now support from anonymous proxied guys and and id's like mr reyes. Why not let them do it? Since Zappaz seems to be paralysed by his bias to let his intellect work for the other side, in this case Wikipedia. Let them do their propaganda job. Delete the criticism article, mortify those who leave such cults. The English Wikipedia will be judged by it's contents. The German Wikipedians reacted on the translation of "Prem Rawat" their way. They cut it down to a little piece of information about a cult. Period. My anger about that is now flying away and i wonder if that is just the right way for an encyclopedia.Thomas h 17:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Trolls and Hombres

message: I have just removed mention of my name in relation to a link to a website. RichardG made some unsupported allegations about website ownership earlier, and has declined to respond to my challenge. --John Brauns 21:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unauthorised, uncorroborated, use of my name in this article 

message: What's going on? In the span of few hours, our hard work over months of edits has been lost to silly and childish editwarring. I held Andries responsible for the mess, and I will not help him clean it up. You messed it up, Andries, you pick up the pieces. What a f*** waste of time... --ZappaZ  05:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  All Hell Broke Lose? 

message: I gave the article again neutrality warning because of the following reasons
# disproportionate use of references by Rawat and his students. Only the non-follower Chryssides (who is a direct colleague of follower Geaves) is used as a reference. Kranenborg is mentioned as a reference but his comments were removed from the article. So this means that 10 out of 11 references for the article are from Rawat himself or his students!
#Omission of heavy drinking by Dettmer, Mishler, and Donner in the biography part.
#Many business accolades. These business accolades should only be at wikiquote, not here.
Andries 10:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons for the new neutrality warning

message: To whoever is sending me the new material and references, thanks a lot. Keep'm coming! --ZappaZ  06:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: With regard to the meaning of "Balyogeshware", I thought that Bal=child yogesh= yogi and Ishwar means Lord, so this means child-Lord of the yogis. Andries 06:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: BAla is child in Sanskrit, but I am not sure about your interpretation. Let me check with some of my colleagues with a better command of Sanskrit. --ZappaZ  21:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Sanskrit: Bal child under the age of five, yogeshvara a master of yoga; also a name of Krishna. The translation should be "child master of yoga" or "child master of yogis". In Hindi the ending "a" is dropped. --ZappaZ  02:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Balyogeshwar, meaning of the name?

message: I gave the article a neutrality because of selective use of Mishler's testimony that I consider intellectually dishonest. Andries
:You are ignoring the arguments made on this page by several editors. Previous behavior earned you a block.--ZappaZ  01:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Long quotations from third parties should be summarized rather than quoted extensively. I have done so with yourt addition. --ZappaZ  00:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New neutrality disputed warning: selective use of Mishler's testimony 

message: How does these "categories" work? Can any one create a category based on a personal perspective? That reads more as "labelling" or "smearing" than a valued encyclopeid addition. --Janice Rowe 14:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case Dr. Paul Schnabel described Rawat (together with Rajneesh) as an ideal type of charismatic leadership. The category and concept of charismatic authority is a neutral, mainstream, generally accepted term in the sociology of religion that does not make a distinction between old and new religious movements. So this is anything but "smearing". Andries 14:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Schabel can have his opinion, but that does not warrant a category. Your "generically accepted" theory does not warrant a category either. Please vote for the deletion of this category here it is on its way to be deleted anyway. ≈ jossi ≈ 16:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: Rawat is charismatic and Elan Vital is a church in the US. Churches are for religions. Elan Vital is listed as a New RELIGIOUS Movement at Wikipedia. So why should it  not be religious? The twisting can only go that far. 15:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to challenge the categorization of "Charismatic religious leader". My argument is that there is ony one person (Schnabel) that has categorized Prem Rawat as such. One scholar stating his opinion that Prem Rawat is a "charismatic religious leader" is not sufficient to include him in this category. Stating that Schnabel carries that opinion, as we have done already in the article, is compatible with NPOV, but categorizing him as such because of the opinion of one person, and without the possibity of presenting a rebuttal to his opinion, is not NPOV. For example, if I create a category :Category:People that sing off key and add Britney Spears to that category on the basis that one music critic says that she sings off-key. That would be ridiculous. Based upon this argument I propose to remove that category from this article. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 03:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i am simply counting on logic. If you agree that he is charismatic and he lives in a context of a NEw RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT, like i think you and Zappaz have stated that themselves, he is a charismatic religious leader. Otherwise you should scratch the NRM thing in terms of Rawat and end the status of Elan Vital as a church in the US, or do you want to tell us that you are only cheating with such labels for PR and monetarian reasons?You can add that as a complaint about rawat by critics right away in the criticism article then ;-).BTW, congrats to your successful adminship election Thomas h 10:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Please note that this is not about what you or I think. (For example, I think that Prem Rawat is very charismatic, but I do not see him fulfilling a role of a leader in the traditional meaning of the word, and by reading his comments about this subject neither does he).  This is about an encyclopedia with an non-negotiable principle of NPOV that calls for providing references and attributions of assertions made in its articles, (and that includes lists and categories, of course). I would further argue that Schnabel describes him as an example of "charismatic authority" and not as a ";charismatic religious leader", so unless we can show that there is an overwhelming claim that he is one by notable sources, we cannot not include him in this category. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i didn't know there is a traditional meaning of the word leader, is there? And in comparison something that might be a leader but not one to be categorised as such. Come on, that is rather getting philosophical and i promise you that all the other people listed in category charismatic religious leaders have their own special way how they are leaders and how they see themselves as being special. Why do you want an extra way, is it so hard then to be distinguished from others? You didn't answer to the circumstances Elan Vital/Church and NRM that  have  Rawat as their centerpoint also. The way he leads may be special, nonetheless he falls into that category. He described himself as a leader in the past and relativated it later, and on closed meeting reinstalls his claims as a leader to relativate it later...... So he has expressed both and the good apprentice choses what pleases the master. Yes a special way of leading, i agree. So he is a charismatic religious centerpoint with a special way of leadership that shall not be categorised? Pfffffff. For the Category Charismatic religious leadership is a summary term of a phenomena that we have in our times 'cause there are so many, i don't think sources are necessary that describe him exactly as such, word by word, but  rather attributes that fit to this category are what counts. And if we look at rawat's life, leadership is definitely something he is to be categorised. All the changes that you were so proud of presenting that Rawat has done in the last 20 years are not possible and thinkable without leadership. So we have sources that he is charismatic and sources that he is a leader, the religious aspect for example is done by himself and yourself see NRMs and Elan Vital.  Thomas h 17:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me repeat my argument again: This is not about what you or I think about Prem Rawat being or not being a "religious charismatic leader". This is about: Are there notable sources that characterizes Prem Rawat as a "charismatic religious leader"? If there are, the categortization applies. If there aren't the categorization does not as it will fall within the policy of original research.  ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 18:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: No, i think you are  wrong, let me correct you. Even Zappaz has stated on the talkpage  charismatic religious leaders that he considers a) religious b) charismatic and c) leaders are those that fit into that category.Remember, he tried to remove Rawat from that Page but he was refused to do so, secondly he tried to delete the corresponding entry from the Prem Rawat Page then, which you are about to follow. There is no word that is has to be from one source all together. I got your argument and answered it with mine. This has nothing to do with what i think about it, but are facts that you react upon by ignoring. I don't think we will come to a solution with this and i will transfer the discussion where it belongs to category_talk:charismatic religious leaders Thomas h 18:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: May be one notable source (Schnabel) is a bit meagre for such a categorization. Schnabel's dissertation is very thorough (more thorough than most English language sources) and it is certainly a notable source and it has been and is still cited in the discussions about NRMs in the Netherlands. If it had been flimsy then he would never had acquired such a prestigious job (head of the Social and Cultural Planning Office of the Netherlands). Schnabel implicitly considered Rawat religious, but he may not have stated this explicitly because this was so obvious. Schnabel treated the DLM in chapter II that has the title Nieuwe religieuze bewegingen in Nederland/New religious movements in the Netherlands Andries 18:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: in his book, "Indische Mission und neue Frömmigkeit im Westen", Reinhart Hummel says about Rawat's Charisma:  the charisma of the child enhanced to messianic relevance has played the same role as the acceptance by the youth subculture. The young Guru Maharaj Ji is  a notedly example how Guru adoration is easyly combined with public relation-technics, starcult and charisma, but also an example how much it can get disfigured Thomas h 19:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thomas and others, two notable sources justify the categorization, I think. I cannot think of a better scholarly source in German than Hummel. Can you please also cite the German original to avoid translation mistakes? This is also necessary because of Wikipedia:verifiability. Thanks Andries 19:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: in the same book Hans is described as a "popular charismatic" who could assemble a growing discipleship around him. This is a book about indian religious groups that extended to the west. ISBN: 3170056093 , well there is much more to cite. Thomas h 19:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: OK, here the German version: 
*1st quote: Das Charisma des Kindes gesteigert zur messianischan Relevanz (C.Colpe), hat dabei  eine ebenso große Rolle gespielt wie die enorme Publizität und die Aufnahmebereitschaft  der jugendlichen Subkultur . Der junge Guru Maharaj Ji ist das deutlichste Beispiel dafür, wie leicht sich Guruverehrung mit Starkult und Charisma mit Public Relations-Techniken verbinden, aber auch von ihnen entstellt werden können.
*2nd quote: Als volktümlicher Charismatiker konnte er eine wachsende Anhängerschaft um sich sammeln...........
Thomas h 19:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry guys, but you are mistaken. I do not disagree with the fact that there are sources that considered Prem Rawat charismatic. That is already stated in the article. But there are no sources that categorize him as a "charismatic religious leader". Find sources that categorize him as a "Charismatic religious leader" and there will not a be a discussion. Note that if the category would have been :Category:Charismatic people we would not have any discussiona either. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 20:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not understand what you are saying. Schnable considers him a charismatic religious leader, as I thought I had explained. Andries 20:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: jossi wants it word by word. So if the book is about religious leaders only, it doesn't matter to him, because the term "charismatic religious leader" doesn't appear word by word, as if is horizon is too limited. So i know this is not the case, i consider it as a tactic to prevent that categorisation for Rawat. As long as Rawat is listed in charismatic religious leaders it should stay on the Prem Rawat article anyway. And as far Jossi's tactics are concerned it should be brought to a bigger audience. Maybe Jossi should learn what the word category means in this case. If a person has such and such attributes he belongs to such and such category. There is no need that the sources of those different attributes have to be listed in one place. Jossi should proof to us that an affiliation to a category is only given when the attributes of the subjects are listed in one place and that they have to have a specific order, which he will not be able unless he creates his own article about "Category" at Wikipedia where he will exactly state that. Thomas h 20:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I guess that Jossi will realize that he is wrong in this respect.  Schnabel mentions in his dissertation "New religious movements and mental health" in the chapter "New religous movements in the Netherlands" that Rawat is a charismatic leader. Then it is of course clear that Schnabel means that Rawat is a charismatic religious leader. (He wrote that the Divine United Organisation is the defunct business branch and that the DLM is the religous branch consisting of Maharaji and intitators.) Andries 21:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if we go to the extent of "assuming" that Schnabel referred to Prem Rawat as a charismatic religious leader (an assumption to which I obviously object), one source is not enough for such characterization. The cite from Hummel does not refer to leadership, but to charisma. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 21:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the judge who sentenced MacGregor stated that Rawat is the "Cult leader". So this is a neutral source. Together with the attributes of other scholar researchers we can easily state the "charismatic religious leader" Thomas h 06:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: here from the University of Virginia After Shri Han Ji Maharaj's death his youngest son, Guru Maharaj Ji, took over his father's position as spiritual leader of the Divine Light Mission at the youthful age of eight Thomas h 07:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can create a category :Category:Spiritual leaders and add this article to that category. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 12:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: What you call bypassing NPOV is a simple analysis combined from different sources and thus created a category to have that fit in. Analysis and combining sources is explicitely allowed at Wikipedia. If the sources are reliable. If you find the name of the category offensive you should explain why, suggestions were already made to change that. Since different scholars did researches with a different focus, you can expect a variety of wording of course. If for example Hummels book refers to leaders like prabhupada and others that are already listed in this category, it is pretty clear that these persons are leaders. Since you put Rawat and Elan Vital  into the NRM category yourself you shouldn't wonder when that label sticks. So if by assembling scholarly resources facts are found that are in common with other subjects of research creating a category that fits them is just creating another view point. If this is used to create a whole another picture and disfigures the subject a discussion should be held and argumenst should count. The mere expecation of the exact wording to allow a subject fit into a category, isn't helpful and probably not even scholarly but maybe sqare headed Thomas h 13:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comment, but you are not addressing the concerns expresed. I am not discussing leadership or religion or charisma as attributes. I am discussion a very specific situation that  "charismastic religious leader" as a category is bypassing the non-negotiable principle of NPOV.  We can add that Schnabel considers him that, we can add that he has charisma accoring to XYZ and we can add that he may be a leader according to ABC in this article. That would be OK fron an NPOV perspective if properly attributed and sourced from reliable sources. Adding Prem Rawat (and if fact, many others in that category) to :Category:Charismatic religious leaders is not. Read WP:NPOV ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 14:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  So do you think creating categories are a general failure at Wikipedia? If you translate the topic  "Charismatic religious leaders" in "Leaders that have religious and charismatic attributes", would it be be better then? Of course the question may be raised why should there be such a category at all? But i think this is understandable because there a quite a few that fit into this pattern and can be grouped. A disclaming intro could clarify that these persons where chosen just and only because of these attributes, which may be considered as a groce graduation but nonetheless might be helpful to a reader to get an overview of that matter. I don't think Prem Rawat is so special in what he has done and what he does,that he won't fit in. Of course that doesn't mean that he is or should be limited to that. And i want to state the only an outside look can be presented here. From the outside Elan Vital is a religion. Elan Vital has freely chosen to be a church, and you have with the allowance of Elan Vital and even Rawat i guess, chosen to join the label of a NRM. So that is religious, even if from the inside, you represent that this is the essence of all religions, and therefore naming it a religion or religious would miss the point. Thomas h 16:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not about religious leaders that have charisma. This is about a distinction made by Max Weber about Charismatic authority and the creation of a category based on that distinction. The problem only shows up when you try to add people to this category. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: i think i see your point. Limiting Rawat's authority on his mere charisma, is that what upsets you? Can you tell me more exactly what are the things that you object to? Thomas h 17:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I object to the use of categories to bypass NPOV aspects that are non-negotiable. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Read Wikipedia:Categorization of people as it covers most of my concerns. I propose to delete  :Category:Charismatic religious leaders and add the :Category:People_known_in_connection_with_religion_or_philosophy to remain within policy. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case I agree with Jossi. Andries 19:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: i tend to agree with Jossi as well now, especially because behind this category stands the view of Max Weber which should be stated in the title then. And together with this view categorizing most of the persons in this list is wrong from my point of view also. What i would have liked to know is where exactly Jossi's view is confliciting with Webers category because i want to understand this right and maybe i am a bit curious. Thomas h 08:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Charismatic Religious Leader

message: If there is an assertion that it is disputed (as this one clearly is), in an article we have the opportunity to present all POVs and describe the controversy as needed for NPOV. When you place a person in a category, you are indeed bypassing NPOV by not allowing that to take place. In addition, from the dozen or so scholars that wrote about Prem Rawat, no one specifically labeled him a "charismatic religious leader" with the disputed exception of Schnabel. Adding Prem Rawat to that category bypassses NPOV as it presents a minority POV as a majority POV. Both these aspects are against NPOV. Unless we can reach consesnsus about this, I will be initiating an inquiry at the Village pump about this as I see this as an possible attemtp to bypass NPOV by using Categories. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 12:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What you call bypassing NPOV is a simple analysis combined from different sources and thus created a category to have that fit in. Analysis and combining sources is explicitely allowed at Wikipedia. If the sources are reliable. If you find the name of the category offensive you should explain why, suggestions were already made to change that. Since different scholars did researches with a different focus, you can expect a variety of wording of course. If for example Hummels book refers to leaders like prabhupada and others that are already listed in this category, it is pretty clear that these persons are leaders. Since you put Rawat and Elan Vital  into the NRM category yourself you shouldn't wonder when that label sticks. So if by assembling scholarly resources facts are found that are in common with other subjects of research creating a category that fits them is just creating another view point. If this is used to create a whole another picture and disfigures the subject a discussion should be held and argumenst should count. The mere expecation of the exact wording to allow a subject fit into a category, isn't helpful and probably not even scholarly but maybe sqare headed Thomas h 13:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comment, but you are not addressing the concerns expresed. I am not discussing leadership or religion or charisma as attributes. I am discussion a very specific situation that  "charismastic religious leader" as a category is bypassing the non-negotiable principle of NPOV.  We can add that Schnabel considers him that, we can add that he has charisma accoring to XYZ and we can add that he may be a leader according to ABC in this article. That would be OK fron an NPOV perspective if properly attributed and sourced from reliable sources. Adding Prem Rawat (and if fact, many others in that category) to :Category:Charismatic religious leaders is not. Read WP:NPOV ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 14:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  So do you think creating categories are a general failure at Wikipedia? If you translate the topic  "Charismatic religious leaders" in "Leaders that have religious and charismatic attributes", would it be be better then? Of course the question may be raised why should there be such a category at all? But i think this is understandable because there a quite a few that fit into this pattern and can be grouped. A disclaming intro could clarify that these persons where chosen just and only because of these attributes, which may be considered as a groce graduation but nonetheless might be helpful to a reader to get an overview of that matter. I don't think Prem Rawat is so special in what he has done and what he does,that he won't fit in. Of course that doesn't mean that he is or should be limited to that. And i want to state the only an outside look can be presented here. From the outside Elan Vital is a religion. Elan Vital has freely chosen to be a church, and you have with the allowance of Elan Vital and even Rawat i guess, chosen to join the label of a NRM. So that is religious, even if from the inside, you represent that this is the essence of all religions, and therefore naming it a religion or religious would miss the point. Thomas h 16:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not about religious leaders that have charisma. This is about a distinction made by Max Weber about Charismatic authority and the creation of a category based on that distinction. The problem only shows up when you try to add people to this category. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: i think i see your point. Limiting Rawat's authority on his mere charisma, is that what upsets you? Can you tell me more exactly what are the things that you object to? Thomas h 17:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I object to the use of categories to bypass NPOV aspects that are non-negotiable. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Read Wikipedia:Categorization of people as it covers most of my concerns. I propose to delete  :Category:Charismatic religious leaders and add the :Category:People_known_in_connection_with_religion_or_philosophy to remain within policy. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case I agree with Jossi. Andries 19:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: i tend to agree with Jossi as well now, especially because behind this category stands the view of Max Weber which should be stated in the title then. And together with this view categorizing most of the persons in this list is wrong from my point of view also. What i would have liked to know is where exactly Jossi's view is confliciting with Webers category because i want to understand this right and maybe i am a bit curious. Thomas h 08:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Using categories to bypass NPOV