Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 24

message: I've had a go at editing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal
I've changed
'he sent one of his closest students, known as mahatmas,' 
to:
'he sent one of his closest students, known as, a mahatma, to London'.
I've added ' Rawat denied the claim when asked, but accepted the veneration of followers who believed he was a divine incarnation. '
This may or may not be the best way to balance the general impression given that it was entirely due to the teachings of others that he was perceived as divine. PR allowed people to treat him and address him as 'Lord', and called God 'Maharaj Ji' in his speeches (which happened to be his own generally used name and title as well.) We can easily show that at the very least he had some reponsibility in followers perception of him as a divine incarnation. For example he would cite prayers to 'Maharaji' in his speeches. We can find some examples of this if this is disputed.
Changed:
'The guru was more important than the organisation, devotion was encouraged and many people returned to Ashram life.' 
to:
'The guru was more important than the organisation, he encouraged devotion and many people returned to Ashram life.'
Others were simply responding to the change of emphasis in his teachings.
Changed:
'Although Rawat teaches no beliefs or ethical practices, the fundamental experience of inner peace is to be found through satsang, service and meditation, the sum of which is an experience Prem Rawat calls "Knowledge." Rawat claims that "Knowledge is a way..' 
to: 
'Although Rawat now teaches no beliefs or ethical practices, the fundamental experience of inner peace is claimed to be found through satsang, service and meditation, the sum of which is an experience Prem Rawat calls "Knowledge." Rawat asserts that "Knowledge is a way.."
He once did teach ethical practices as per ashram lifestyle. "claimed' inserted for NPOVPatW 21:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed your addition "but accepted the veneration of followers who believed he was a divine incarnation" as not all followers believed he was a divine incarnation as Colliers following quotes indicates. Following your addition of "he" to "he encouraged devotion and many people returned to Ashram life", I have changed the style in the previous paragraph to match so "Rawat encouraged people to leave the ashram, discard Indian terminology and customs and reduced staff at DLM HQ from 250 to 80".Momento 22:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And by the way, it was entirely due to the teachings of others that he was perceived as divine. Rawat didn't start this thing, he stepped into a pre-exisitng position vacated by his father. The idea of the Guru being divine and the role of the devotee existed for hundreds of years before Rawat was born.Momento 22:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's absolutely untrue, Momento.  I can provide plenty (hundreds) of Prem Rawat quotes that contradict your theory that it was only "teachings of others" that taught that Guru Maharaj Ji is divine, God, just like Jesus, Buddha, Mohamad, etc.  One simple example of how wrong you are is Maharaji's own ashram manual (which he wrote) which dictates that ashram premies sing "Arti" twice per day. Another is that "Arti" was sung to Maharaji directly as he sat on his throne on the stage at every festival/program he held in the years late 1976 (Atlantic City, New Jersey program -- I was there) through 1981 at least.  Heck, "Arti" was sung after nightly satsang meetings. "Arti" was the main devotional song sung by followers of Rawat.  Please don't rewrite factual history, Momento.  Rawat made plenty of claims to be God manifest in human form. Sylviecyn 14:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Your "veneration" addition is unbalanced. Of the year we're talking about, 1973, Collier says ""Guru Maharaj Ji, though he has never made a definitive statement on his own opinion of his own divinity, generally encourages whatever view is held by the people he is with." So he not only accepted the "veneration of followers who believed he was a divine incarnation" as you say, he also accepted the acclamation of those that saw him as "more of a teacher, a guide, a co-conspirator in their personal pursuit of a more heavenly way of life".  Your addition promotes only one side of the story. In the past this would result in an editor adding the second half of Collier's quote. But since we are, at last, going towards brevity, I suggest you remove your one sided commentary, so I don't have to add the other side.Momento 03:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: PatW, you feel entitled to remove other people's edits without discussion. Including edits that have been stable for weeks. But when I remove one of your many edits (which you admitted was incorrect) you start complaining? It's not very encouraging.Momento 02:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Downton disagrees with you. He says that "After the festival (Millenium 1973), there was a decided change in the guru's attitude about his role in the Mission. Nearly sixteen, he was ready to assume a more active part in deciding what direction the movement should take. This of course meant that he had to encroach on his mother's territory and, given the fact that she was accustomed to having control, a fight was inevitable. The end of 1973 saw Guru Maharaj Ji breaking away from his mother and his Indian past. He declared himself the sole source of spiritual authority in the Mission". And, "unlike some gurus who have come to this country and have easternized their followers, he became more fully westernized, which premies interpreted as an attempt to integrate his spiritual teachings into our culture". Downton continues  "After shuffling the top leadership of the Mission, Guru Maharaj Ji began to decentralize organizational initiative and power by turning some of the decision-making over to local premie communities, while he maintained his status as the ultimate authority over spiritual and secular matters. This move stimulated another change in the movement by encouraging independent action on the part of premies. For example, the guru had inspired greater autonomy by saying in January 1976: "Don't expect that all these premies who are in the ashram right now are going to stay in the ashram. I hope they don't". Downton is clear, Rawat was in charge and Rawat encouraged people to leave the Ashram. So I'll amend your edit.Momento 03:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If it didn't mean anything, I would assert Maharaji would have dropped the entire Indian title.  But, it isn't a matter of what you or I think of him based on his name.  Rawat is the surname that's very common in India, but "Maharaji" isn't a surname, rather, it's a title that means "Great King."  It isn't derivitative of the English language and since this is the English language Wikipedia, it seems to me we ought to enlighten readers as to the meaning of the word, and since the "Maharaja" article explains it quite well, there's no point omitting that in an English encyclopedic article about someone who is "commonly known as, or affectionately known as Maharaji" by his followers.  Either way -- name or title -- it's still a sanskrit/hindi word that can and should be defined for the benefit of readers. Sylviecyn 18:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of a do about nothing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not much ado about nothing.  The fact that Rawat kept an Indian title/name is quite significant, given the many assertions in the article that he pushed to remove all "Indian trappings."  I think it's pertinant for readers to know what the word "maharaji" means.  Sylviecyn 10:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (a) I have  not seen any scholars making a big deal of his name; (b) In India people call others "Maharaj" as sign of respect to saints, yogis, religious scholars and high officials, and "Ji" means "Sir" (there are about 2,000,000 google hits for Maharaj!). Other similar ways to address such people used India are swami, pandit, shayk, pir, and others.  So yes, he removed the Indian trappings that were not useful in the West. But he has not removed his origins... he still wears a kurta while in India, and he still draws from that tradition in many ways. So this issue about the name is indeed much of a do about nothing and not at all "pertinant (sic) for readers". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a definition of the word "maharaji."  It's not original research, Jossi.  People on Wikipedia define foreign terms all of the time, especially if there's an article about it here, and the word "Satguru" was linked until the recent mass rewrite.  If Rawat was also known as "swami, pandit, shayk, pir, and others," I would recommend any of those be defined as they are foreign words in an English-language encyclopedia.  Moreover, Rawat is known as "maharaji" throughout the world, not just in India, so you lose that argument.  I'm not suggesting writing anything about it, my suggestion is to simply link the word "maharaji" to the maharaja article.  That's all.  Unless Rawat has trademarked the word "maharaji," I'm right on this. Thou dost protest too much. :-) Sylviecyn 11:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Jossi, I'm not the one making a big deal out of this. You haven't disallowed the linking of the word "satguru" so I'm puzzled by your reaction.  Sylviecyn 12:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but no.... there is no need to link to maharaja because PR is not a maharaja. There is an article on maharaj that may be closer, but linking a name to generic definition is not appropriate, neither is standard. We could add a link in the see also section, though. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, no problem.  I just wanted to check.  I guess readers can look up the meaning of the word if they're interested.  Thanks.  Sylviecyn 17:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: See my response to Sylvnc above related to the meaning of the title Maharaj. As for what you say above, it may be a great conversation piece, but again not relevant as it pertains to the article. Remember that we are just reporting what reliable published sources say about a subject and not to "clarify Rawat's own words" to the readers. That will have to be left to them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, no one suggested using the Q & A quote (I posted it for your info), so your "replacement" is not shortening the article, it's adding to it. So strike out reason a). Secondly, removing all evidence of Rawat's unambiguous and oft quoted denials of being God (as per the Hoffman "God" quote) and replacing it with Collier's opinion of Rawat's opinion of his divinity is disgraceful editing. And thirdly, your suggestion to remove Collier's long included quote describing the variety of opinion about Rawat (to make way for your "replacement") because you claim it "does not relate to Rawat's response at all" is outgaeous because you have single handedly removed Rawat's response entirely. This is the most heavy handed POV pushing I have seen in months.Reverted.Momento 21:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: From an Interview with John Wood of the Boston Globe with Guru Maharaj Ji in Newton, Massachusetts, August 3, 1973, re-published in And It Is Divine ~ Dec. 1973, Volume 2. Issue 2. and re-published in "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?" (November 1973), Bantam Books, Inc. 
Question: Guru Maharaji Ji, are you God? – Answer: No. My Knowledge is God
Here is an unambiguous, well sourced denial given to a reporter and published three times in 1973. Removing this important info from an important discussion is blatant censorship. You removed it from the article because it contradicts your POV and you don't want Wiki readers to know the truth.Momento 21:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, PatW: no personal attacks. I have placed a 2nd warning in your talk page. There is no need to verbally attack fellow editors, even if you disagree with them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the article includes Hoffman making the comment "If this guy's God etc", infomation about Rawat's view about the claim of being God is of utmost importance. You removed it. Collier is irrelevant. End of story.Momento 23:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PATW's EDITS TO PROPOSED ARTICLE

message: A large thrust of the article appears to be the assertion that Rawat removed "Indian trappings."  But, Rawat retains the name "Maharaji," which is a term from India.  I think that since most people don't know the Sanskrit or Hindi definition of the word "Maharaja or Maharaji," it's handy that wikipedia already has an article that explains its meaning as "great king," which is how it's always been defined by DLM and premies.  See Maharaja.  Let's discuss.  Sylviecyn 14:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it didn't mean anything, I would assert Maharaji would have dropped the entire Indian title.  But, it isn't a matter of what you or I think of him based on his name.  Rawat is the surname that's very common in India, but "Maharaji" isn't a surname, rather, it's a title that means "Great King."  It isn't derivitative of the English language and since this is the English language Wikipedia, it seems to me we ought to enlighten readers as to the meaning of the word, and since the "Maharaja" article explains it quite well, there's no point omitting that in an English encyclopedic article about someone who is "commonly known as, or affectionately known as Maharaji" by his followers.  Either way -- name or title -- it's still a sanskrit/hindi word that can and should be defined for the benefit of readers. Sylviecyn 18:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of a do about nothing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not much ado about nothing.  The fact that Rawat kept an Indian title/name is quite significant, given the many assertions in the article that he pushed to remove all "Indian trappings."  I think it's pertinant for readers to know what the word "maharaji" means.  Sylviecyn 10:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (a) I have  not seen any scholars making a big deal of his name; (b) In India people call others "Maharaj" as sign of respect to saints, yogis, religious scholars and high officials, and "Ji" means "Sir" (there are about 2,000,000 google hits for Maharaj!). Other similar ways to address such people used India are swami, pandit, shayk, pir, and others.  So yes, he removed the Indian trappings that were not useful in the West. But he has not removed his origins... he still wears a kurta while in India, and he still draws from that tradition in many ways. So this issue about the name is indeed much of a do about nothing and not at all "pertinant (sic) for readers". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a definition of the word "maharaji."  It's not original research, Jossi.  People on Wikipedia define foreign terms all of the time, especially if there's an article about it here, and the word "Satguru" was linked until the recent mass rewrite.  If Rawat was also known as "swami, pandit, shayk, pir, and others," I would recommend any of those be defined as they are foreign words in an English-language encyclopedia.  Moreover, Rawat is known as "maharaji" throughout the world, not just in India, so you lose that argument.  I'm not suggesting writing anything about it, my suggestion is to simply link the word "maharaji" to the maharaja article.  That's all.  Unless Rawat has trademarked the word "maharaji," I'm right on this. Thou dost protest too much. :-) Sylviecyn 11:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Jossi, I'm not the one making a big deal out of this. You haven't disallowed the linking of the word "satguru" so I'm puzzled by your reaction.  Sylviecyn 12:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but no.... there is no need to link to maharaja because PR is not a maharaja. There is an article on maharaj that may be closer, but linking a name to generic definition is not appropriate, neither is standard. We could add a link in the see also section, though. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, no problem.  I just wanted to check.  I guess readers can look up the meaning of the word if they're interested.  Thanks.  Sylviecyn 17:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: See my response to Sylvnc above related to the meaning of the title Maharaj. As for what you say above, it may be a great conversation piece, but again not relevant as it pertains to the article. Remember that we are just reporting what reliable published sources say about a subject and not to "clarify Rawat's own words" to the readers. That will have to be left to them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, no one suggested using the Q & A quote (I posted it for your info), so your "replacement" is not shortening the article, it's adding to it. So strike out reason a). Secondly, removing all evidence of Rawat's unambiguous and oft quoted denials of being God (as per the Hoffman "God" quote) and replacing it with Collier's opinion of Rawat's opinion of his divinity is disgraceful editing. And thirdly, your suggestion to remove Collier's long included quote describing the variety of opinion about Rawat (to make way for your "replacement") because you claim it "does not relate to Rawat's response at all" is outgaeous because you have single handedly removed Rawat's response entirely. This is the most heavy handed POV pushing I have seen in months.Reverted.Momento 21:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: From an Interview with John Wood of the Boston Globe with Guru Maharaj Ji in Newton, Massachusetts, August 3, 1973, re-published in And It Is Divine ~ Dec. 1973, Volume 2. Issue 2. and re-published in "Who is Guru Maharaj Ji?" (November 1973), Bantam Books, Inc. 
Question: Guru Maharaji Ji, are you God? – Answer: No. My Knowledge is God
Here is an unambiguous, well sourced denial given to a reporter and published three times in 1973. Removing this important info from an important discussion is blatant censorship. You removed it from the article because it contradicts your POV and you don't want Wiki readers to know the truth.Momento 21:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, PatW: no personal attacks. I have placed a 2nd warning in your talk page. There is no need to verbally attack fellow editors, even if you disagree with them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the article includes Hoffman making the comment "If this guy's God etc", infomation about Rawat's view about the claim of being God is of utmost importance. You removed it. Collier is irrelevant. End of story.Momento 23:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Maharaji

message: If anyone wants to get the complete gist of the arguments leading to this situation please read from PATW's EDITS TO PROPOSED ARTICLE abovePatW 02:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Pat, I did not see Momento using uncivil remarks about you such as Duh! If you don't want to look any more dumb than you already do.... If he did, and I missed it, please show me were and I will place a warning on his page as well. I have asked Vassyana to take a look and help cool off the atmosphere here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about 'disgraceful editing' 'This is the most heavy handed POV pushing I have seen in months.' ' blatant censorship'. 'you don't want Wiki readers to know the truth' . Does that constitute 'Good Faith'? Seriously I took considerable trouble to take Momento up in good faith on the request to do some editing on the proposed article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal&action=history  if you can be bothered to go and look you'll maybe agree that I made useful edits and I was treading on eggshells not to be pushing any POV. Momento has just attacked me mercilessly and I think very unreasonably, over wanting to include more of Coliers quote. I really think my points are valid. If my efforts are so consistently seen as suspicious, as if I want to lie about Rawat then I reckon I should leave this article to others. And as for being treated like a scoolboy, punished by an unfair prefect that is really a game I am not playing with you any more.  Being treated with so much mistrust and avoidance of arguing perfectly sensible points is incredibly tiresome.  I think me calling Momento dumb for attacking me AND reverting my edits twice without discussing my reasons was much less rude than his demonstrative expressions of lack of good faith.PatW 00:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't misrepresent me, PatW My comments above were not about you adding more Collier, but removing Rawat's comment re Hoffman's God comment.Momento 01:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have refactored your personal attack, Pat. This is not acceptable, sorry. A third warning is in on your page. Your personals attack have been reported at WP:ANI. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  No one has said you can't remove a quote. I was correcting your misinformation.Momento 01:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand by my warning, but I will let Vassyana comment on this, as probably you will be more open to listen to him than to me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you have amended your original comment. If you feel attacked, that does not give you the right to attack back. The responsibility to keep an atmosphere conducive to editing is the responsibility of each editor. Yes, Momento should not criticize your edits in strong language, but calling an editor "dumb" is crossing a line that you should have not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Your claim that I reverted your edits twice is completely false.Momento 01:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No PatW, I didn't revert two of your edits.Momento 01:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I reverted the one edit we're discussing once. It is your edit of 19:15, 2 April 2007 when you removed the sentence "Rawat denied the claim".Momento 09:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I reverted the paragraph to read as you edited it Pat. It more clearly reflects Collier's statement in her book and the actual truth about Rawat's non-denial-denials over the years about his own divinity.  It's a secondary source that actually reflects the truth.  Sylviecyn 02:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protest from editor PatW. Vassyana please comment on Jossi's warning

message: I will comment on this particular content dispute tomorrow. However, I will ask that you all drop it for now. This back and forth is not serving any useful purpose except to keep the dispute at a high temperature. Let's come back to this later, when we can discuss the content instead of other editors. I am asking that you please do this to allow the atmosphere to cool down. Vassyana 02:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please

message: Everyone needs to take a step back, take a breath and relax. This is just an internet article. I understand that emotions run high and strong for both Rawat's supporters and detractors. However, everyone should try and relax, and possibly focus on something else for a bit. This is not the place to show the world how great Prem Rawat, and neither is it the place to expose his evils. We should only report what reliable sources have said about him in verifiable references, good, bad and neutral.
Regardless of how rude other editors may become, you should not stoop to their level or escalate the situation. If you type a message and you're about to hit save, but it contains a rude message or personal attack, do not hit save. In fact, close that window. Come back later in the day, or even the next day, to post your reply with a cooler head. That counts for edit summaries too. If someone else is doing it, it's all the more reason not to do it. Retaliating will only further escalate the situation and move the focus away from productively working to improve the article. 
I also understand when people are being rude it can be frustrating. However, while personal attacks are against the rules, being a "donkey"-"pit" is not, though it is discouraged. If someone is just being blunt or rude, it's unlikely to draw warnings, while personal attacks will almost always draw warnings and blocks. It's just the nature of the rules. However, this should not be an excuse used to game the rules and bait others. Editors who continually engage in that behaviour (baiting) can expect to be brought under scrutiny, brought before arbitration or in extreme and repeated cases even banned from the community. While being a "donkeypit" is not against the rules on its own, disruptive behaviour is against the rules. 
If you're really in a wiki state of mind, Dharmic religion could use a few more eyes and voices. Vedanta could use some attention to its citations and sources. Guru and the many articles related to it could use some attention and improvement as well. So, if you're really up for wiki-editing, but your emotions are running high here, there are other places for you to put your energy while letting your frustration settle down. Just some thoughts. Vassyana 01:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cool down 

message: This is an proposed truce. 
#Forgiveness of past transgressions. All parties agree to move forward from this point. What is done, is done. What is in the past, is in the past. Everyone will be considered to have a clean slate. Editors should avoid using past behaviour or editing patterns in discussing content disputes. Good faith should be assumed as part of this clean slate, regardless of past actions in relation to this article. 
#No personal attacks. All parties agree to refrain from insults and personal attacks on other editors, either directly, on talk pages or in edit summaries. Personal attacks instigate more conflict. This additionally includes rude, polemical and similar statements that may not cross the threshold for personal attacks, but are potentially offensive, uncivil or baiting. Such statements are antithetical to a productive and cooperative environment.  
#Focus on content. All parties agree to refrain from commenting on other editors and instead focus on commenting on the content. We need to keep a cool head, be courteous and work towards improving Wikipedia. Cloaking personal attacks, rude comments and polemics by addressing them to the "content, not the editor" is still unacceptable. Do not split hairs between claiming that an editor is "pushing propaganda" or "stupid" and using the same terms for an edit. It is obvious that the comment about the edit relates to the editor who made it.  
#No outside battles. All parties agree to avoid edit wars with other participants, even outside of this article. Edit battles, editing to prove a point and disruptive editing don't improve Wikipedia and distract us from productive activity. Aside from concerns about wikistalking, conflicts in other places will only serve to further ruin the relationship between the warring editors, thereby poisoning the atmosphere here.
#Good faith cooldown. Any party violating this truce shall take an 4 hour cool down break from this article and interacting with the participant(s) that are part of the conflict. Other parties will not tag warn or report the violating behaviour provided the offending editor takes the self-imposed break. If a second violation occurs in the same day, measured as 24 hours since the last violation, the offender shall take a full 24 hour cool down break. As with the 4 hour break, the violating behaviour should not be reported if the offending editor takes the self-imposed break. We all get a bit heated or passionate at times and we should try to be understanding of others, but also be aware of our own behaviour. Taking the break and not reporting the behaviour are both shows of good faith. If another editor breaks the terms of this truce, or otherwise behaves unacceptably, it is not a reason to do the same. Be cool, be courteous and take a short break if needed.
#Reporting violations. Habitual violations of this truce should be reported as appropriate. However, all participants should give ample opportunity for an offending editor to take the self-imposed good faith cooldown. Participants understand that if they continually violate these terms that their actions may be interpreted in light of this agreement, since it could be interpreted as evidence aganst the value of a promise to stop. All parties agree to have their actions considered under the stricter standards for civility in this truce, if reported for repeated violations. Before reporting offending actions in official channels, involved editors should make a good faith attempt to have an outside party or mediator attempt to resolve the situation.
===Agree===
* Welcome back Vassanya.Momento 09:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I would want the last paragraph to be worded mucch stronger. (a) Zero tolerance on incivility; (b) abiding by 1RR; and (c) 48 hour automatic block for an editor that breaks these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Truce

message: * Welcome back Vassanya.Momento 09:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I would want the last paragraph to be worded mucch stronger. (a) Zero tolerance on incivility; (b) abiding by 1RR; and (c) 48 hour automatic block for an editor that breaks these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Agree

message: ===Comments===
The above is a proposed truce for those involved in this article. It is fairly self explanatory. If anyone has any comments or concerns about this proposed truce, please bring them up and I will try to rework it towards everyone's satisfaction. Please do not decline to participate in the truce if you feel it can be reworked to accomodate your concerns. Instead, please post your concerns here, so they can be addressed. This is simply a proposal that can easily be modified to suit the situation and involved editors. Vassyana 07:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The way you addressed other editors, the flaming, the escalation that ensued, and your dismissive attitude towards repeated requests to cool off, and not address other editors disrespectfully, was simply not acceptable, Pat, sorry. Editors are held accountable for their behavior in Wikipedia. Those warnings stand. Now, there is a proposal on the table for looking ahead rather than looking back on the basis of a tabula rassa". That is very a generous offer that puts your past behavior and the warnings behind. If you do not to wish to take that offer, well, that is your choice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Collier quote isn't and has never been the issue. The issue is that you removed "Rawat denied the claim" (that has at least four supporting cites) that followed Abbie Hoffman's quote "If this guy is God etc" and replaced it with an obvious and provably incorrect Collier quote.Momento 08:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is fine to quote more of Collier even if you think that she is provably wrong. Remember WP:ATT states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true [..]". Andries 12:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If you find my requests to cool off and being civil towards other editors, to be "officious and humorless", let me remind you that civility and no personal attacks are official policy and two of the few requirements from editors contributing to this project. If you do not want to abide by these, you can stop contributing right now. Not abiding by these is not an option that can be negotiated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headline text 

message: The above is a proposed truce for those involved in this article. It is fairly self explanatory. If anyone has any comments or concerns about this proposed truce, please bring them up and I will try to rework it towards everyone's satisfaction. Please do not decline to participate in the truce if you feel it can be reworked to accomodate your concerns. Instead, please post your concerns here, so they can be addressed. This is simply a proposal that can easily be modified to suit the situation and involved editors. Vassyana 07:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The way you addressed other editors, the flaming, the escalation that ensued, and your dismissive attitude towards repeated requests to cool off, and not address other editors disrespectfully, was simply not acceptable, Pat, sorry. Editors are held accountable for their behavior in Wikipedia. Those warnings stand. Now, there is a proposal on the table for looking ahead rather than looking back on the basis of a tabula rassa". That is very a generous offer that puts your past behavior and the warnings behind. If you do not to wish to take that offer, well, that is your choice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Collier quote isn't and has never been the issue. The issue is that you removed "Rawat denied the claim" (that has at least four supporting cites) that followed Abbie Hoffman's quote "If this guy is God etc" and replaced it with an obvious and provably incorrect Collier quote.Momento 08:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is fine to quote more of Collier even if you think that she is provably wrong. Remember WP:ATT states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true [..]". Andries 12:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If you find my requests to cool off and being civil towards other editors, to be "officious and humorless", let me remind you that civility and no personal attacks are official policy and two of the few requirements from editors contributing to this project. If you do not want to abide by these, you can stop contributing right now. Not abiding by these is not an option that can be negotiated. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I notice some other Wiki biographies use a format where paragraphs with headers can stand alone, that is, the text does not flow smoothly around them. The result is repetition. Personally, I feel the text should flow. Comments? Rumiton 04:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I have just done some more editing here, mainly taking words out that didn't seem to be earning their keep. Have a look. Rumiton 13:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Rumiton.  I'm concerned that quotes from reliable sources are being tweaked to the extent that the prose (while may be fine) is changing the meaning of the source material and the authors' intent.  Could you please provide the sources for those edits??  Thanks.  Sylviecyn 16:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So far, I think your edits are fine, although I may remove some of your your commas -- it's really a matter of personal taste, I think. :>) One thing I've noticed in the article, however.  I don't know if there's a standard in Wikipedia for how dates are written, but within one article they ought to be consistent, imo.  For example, "17 June 1971," as opposed the the American style of "June 17, 1971." I don't care either way -- both are correct -- as long as there's consistency through-out. What do you think, Rumiton?  Also, for everyone's information, when using quotes, the punctuation is always placed within the quotes, i.e.,  "Punctuation within quote."  Hope you're well.  Sylviecyn 16:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you use June 19, 1973 (written as [June 19]], 1973, the wiki software will localize the display  of the date according to the preferences for dates that you have set in "Preferences". So those users who have set the American date standard will see June 19, 1973 and those using British standards will see 17 June, 1973. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Concerning punctuation within quotes, periods and commas always go inside quotation marks. The placement of question marks with quotes follows this logic: If a question is in quotation marks, the question mark should be placed inside the quotation marks, and there is no need to add a period. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know about that? I cannot say that I am an expert, but I thought that the periods go beyond the quotation mark if it is the ending of the quoted sentence. (I have not followed this rule myself). Andries 13:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If it's not contentious, don't look for hidden eggs. I have made a few edits to the proposal, see editor talk.Momento 04:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Teachings 

message: The definition of the mind by Haan is missing. Haan's definition differs from that of Derks and Van der Lans. I will edit in. Btw, Haan is not so much talking about Rawat's teachings, but more about the beliefs and practices of the DLM. Andries 13:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we include that, we need to include other material from scholars about that subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why and what material by what scholars about the mind should be included? Haan's comments are somewhat out of context unless his description of the mind as used in the DLM is included. Andries 16:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions of "mind"

message: This is an proposed truce. 
#Forgiveness of past transgressions. All parties agree to move forward from this point. What is done, is done. What is in the past, is in the past. Everyone will be considered to have a clean slate. Editors should avoid using past behaviour or editing patterns in discussing content disputes. Good faith should be assumed as part of this clean slate, regardless of past actions in relation to this article. 
#No personal attacks. All parties agree to refrain from insults and personal attacks on other editors, either directly, on talk pages or in edit summaries. Personal attacks instigate more conflict. This additionally includes rude, polemical and similar statements that may not cross the threshold for personal attacks, but are potentially offensive, uncivil or baiting. Such statements are antithetical to a productive and cooperative environment.  
#Focus on content. All parties agree to refrain from commenting on other editors and instead focus on commenting on the content. We need to keep a cool head, be courteous and work towards improving Wikipedia. Cloaking personal attacks, rude comments and polemics by addressing them to the "content, not the editor" is still unacceptable. Do not split hairs between claiming that an editor is "pushing propaganda" or "stupid" and using the same terms for an edit. It is obvious that the comment about the edit relates to the editor who made it.  
#No outside battles. All parties agree to avoid edit wars with other participants, even outside of this article. Edit battles, editing to prove a point and disruptive editing don't improve Wikipedia and distract us from productive activity. Aside from concerns about wikistalking, conflicts in other places will only serve to further ruin the relationship between the warring editors, thereby poisoning the atmosphere here.
#Good faith cooldown. Any party violating this truce shall take an 4 hour cool down break from this article and interacting with the participant(s) that are part of the conflict. Other parties will not tag warn or report the violating behaviour provided the offending editor takes the self-imposed break. If a second violation occurs in the same day, measured as 24 hours since the last violation, the offender shall take a full 24 hour cool down break. As with the 4 hour break, the violating behaviour should not be reported if the offending editor takes the self-imposed break. We all get a bit heated or passionate at times and we should try to be understanding of others, but also be aware of our own behaviour. Taking the break and not reporting the behaviour are both shows of good faith. If another editor breaks the terms of this truce, or otherwise behaves unacceptably, it is not a reason to do the same. Be cool, be courteous and take a short break if needed.
#Reporting violations. Habitual violations of this truce should be reported as appropriate. However, all participants should give ample opportunity for an offending editor to take the self-imposed good faith cooldown. Participants understand that if they continually violate these terms that their actions may be interpreted in light of this agreement, since it could be interpreted as evidence aganst the value of a promise to stop. All parties agree to have their actions considered under the stricter standards for civility in this truce, if reported for repeated violations. Before reporting offending actions in official channels, involved editors should make a good faith attempt to have an outside party or mediator attempt to resolve the situation.
===Agree===
* Welcome back Vassanya.Momento 09:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I would want the last paragraph to be worded mucch stronger. (a) Zero tolerance on incivility; (b) abiding by 1RR; and (c) 48 hour automatic block for an editor that breaks these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure. Take your time to understand what agreeing to this will mean. No rush. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Truce

message: * Welcome back Vassanya.Momento 09:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I would want the last paragraph to be worded mucch stronger. (a) Zero tolerance on incivility; (b) abiding by 1RR; and (c) 48 hour automatic block for an editor that breaks these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Agree

message: I invite all editors involved to sign their names below and agree to these terms of engagement in addition to Vassayna:
# Zero tolerance on WP:NPA violations
# Abiding by 1RR (only one revert per day)
# Anyone breaking these rules will agree to take a 48 break from editing the article and making comments on talk.
* Agree ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Take your time to understand what agreeing to this will mean. No rush. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreement 

message: Please discuss any future edits here before making them. Your latest edit has many errors and I have reverted it.Momento 03:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Momento, take some time and engage Ella2 to explain how we collaborate in WP. Seems that Ella2 is a new editor. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mystery solved. On March 12, IsabellaW (Talk | contribs) inserted her own Marta Robles sentence into Barret's 2001 quote. Ella2 has used the fraudulent quote believing it to be genuine. It is not. I have repaired the quote.Momento 10:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IsabellaW is also a newbie and probably made a mistake, being not familiar with the ref format. The quote from  Marta Robles is in  the book "Peace is Possible", and could be restored on its own, if needed be. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ella2

message: I am going to find sources for all the bio/proposal material and when that's done I'm going to propose we replace this article with the one that has been written according to Wiki:Lead and GA standards.Momento 22:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you ask Vassyana to review it before that?  That could be useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll finish it up first, even put in photos and invite him to review it.Momento 22:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I want to apologize Momento, for misreading your statement above and then complaining about it.  That was wrong of me.  I was skimming instead of reading.  So please accept my apology for that.  Also, do you or Jossi know when Vassyana will be back?  I understand he's having computer troubles.  I value his input and think he has been reviewing the article fairly.  Thanks.  Sylviecyn 15:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will email him to find out what's up. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I saw that the comments from Kranenborg and Melton had been removed. Please do not remove or freely interpret them. I have stated this many many times and I will simply revert without warning or further explanation. Andries 16:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed from where? I still see these in the article. As for threats to "revert without warning" I would argue that it would be unacceptable behavior by anyone. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed from the bio-proposal. I have stated my opinion so many times that removal of scholarly summaries of Rawat's teachings is unacceptable. Andries 07:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that I do not have to repeat my warnings over and over again. Andries 09:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Andries, there are hundreds of pages of well sourced and verifiable material on Rawat and we can't put it all in. Kranenborg and Melton are well represented and one way to include them, and many others, is to paraphrase their main points which is what I have done. If you made a judgement on the amount and value of scholastic material written about Rawat, Downton should have 100 times more material in any Rawat article than Kranenborg or Melton.Momento 08:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that you are misparaphrasing Melton and Kraneborg. Please do not do that. Andries 10:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What I learnt from editing this and other Wikipedia articles is that one way to evade disputes about interpretations of sources and (mis-)paraphrasing is to quote them. You have repeatedly and heavily accused me of misparaphrasing and I think that your bio-proposal is worse than what I ever did in this article. Andries 10:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As I told you, this article cannot possibly quote all the material available. Melton and Krannenborg are already over represented. What important thing did they say that aren't included?Momento 10:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The explicit claims of Divinity that Rawat made according to Kranenborg and Melton are missing in the bioproposal. I will revert removal of this. Andries 10:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Also the request according to Kranenborg to surrender to the guru. And the discussion of the mind by Derks and Van der Lans. I find it very difficult to assume your good faith when you have removed all well-sourced scholarly summaries from your bio proposal that may be construed as negative. Andries 10:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: May be the day is coming soon that I will request formal mediation or arbitration. Andries 10:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I suggest you read Vassanya's excellent critique of this article (GA Review (Failed)) Particularly the section  where he says this articloe is "bloated" and "too long" and "needs to be edited mercilessly to produce more consise writing". Removing some of the well-sourced scholarly summaries is necessary. Kranenborg's comment about "surrender to the guru" is adequately covered in the teachings section with - Sants hold that true religion is a matter of surrendering to God "who dwells in the heart," and that the Guru or Perfect Master is "an embodiment of God on Earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration." Kabir, the 15th century poet wrote: "Guru and God both appear before me. To whom should I prostrate? I bow before Guru who introduced God to me". Derks and Van der Lans comment about "all evil should be attributed to the mind," doesn't make sense without including DLM’s concept of mind which refers primarily to "a state of consciousness characterized by everything but passive, nonrational confidence and trust." and "indicate the same obstacle of freeing oneself from former bonds". Which is all too long. And is better containedMomento 11:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think this is not adequately covered in the bio-proposal. You have copied a lot of text from the entry Sant Mat to your bio-proposal while removing scholarly summaries that treat Prem Rawat. Possible out-of-context quoting of Derks and Van der Lans can be corrected with a few words and this is no good reason to remove what they wrote. I suggest that you remove other quotes if you think the entry is too long. Andries 11:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Both Reender Kranenborg and Jan van der Lans were or are well-respected, except by strong anti-cultists. They are not anti-cult or countercult writers. Derks and Van der Lans or their associates interviewed premies. They also published a comment on Downton's book in a book edited by Barker. i.e. . "Subgroups in Divine Light Mission Membership: A Comment on Downton" in The book Gods and Men: New Religious Movements in the West. edited by Eileen Barker Macon, GA: Mercer University Press. (1983) pp. 303-307.  You can read the complete article on the ex-premie forum, post nr. 6263 with subject "Subgroups in Divine Light Mission", posted on 05/22/2006 by Ocker. Andries 11:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The day is coming soon

message: I particularly want to invite Vassayana, Smee, and anyone who is neither a student of Rawat or an ex-student,  to add their comment in the concluding section to a discussion we have had on my user page here: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PatW#Arguments_about_most_honest_use_of_quotes_to_describe_views_about_Rawat.27s_perceived_Divinity 
The reason being that I believe that this discussion perfectly clarifies (in not too many words)  why, in this article, it should be made clearer that even without the agency of students calling Rawat Lord etc. his words and those of his father completely suffice to explain why past students worshipped him as such and entertained many Hindu concepts. I contend that in the current article,  others are disproportionately made to appear responsible for the perception he was 'the' or 'a'  Lord of the Universe /Saviour-type figure and so, this article should fail a Good Article review simply on this account.PatW 20:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully disagree. You can continue the discussions on your opinions on the subject on your talk page, or somewhere else, but these personal opinions have no bearing on this article. As said many times before, in Wikipedia articles we only describe the significant viewpoints published in reliable sources, and not our opinions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Also note that good article status only means that the article is well sourced, well written, compliant with the core content policies of the project, stable, and nothing more. Currently,only 2,105 out of 1,738,169 articles have achieved this status.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You say the important thing is to balance the viewpoints fairly and that is correct, when we discuss published opinions that is, and not our opinions. Many people confuse NPOV and think that a fair balance, is the fair balance of editor's opinions, but that is not correct. The good judgment of editors is needed to summarize these published opinions, but that's all, otherwise we cross into original research, that is not acceptable.  As for Vassyana's comments about honesty, I invite you to re-read his comments. His opinion was that some of the sources used were not well summarized and that do not honestly represent what these sources say. As he did not give specific details on which sources he was referring to, what was implied is to revise all sources used and stay as close as possible to them when summarizing them. That is what editors should do: discuss these sources and agree on how to best summarize them and describe them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I would argue the opposite: that you are worrying about nothing. The current article has plenty of sources describing these aspects: Kranenborg, Downton, Collier, van der Lans, Hunt, Barret, and others. Can the summary of these viewpoints be improved upon? Sure. But I have not seen any proposals that do that, rather, I have witnessed long discussions about editors experiences and opinions that IMO, are not helpful.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Another issue, is that not all involved editors have accepted the terms of engagement proposed by Vassyana (and the more stringent ones proposed by me). That leaves me wondering if there is no intention to agree and abide by these. Not that there is an obligation for editors to accept these terms, but would surely be  useful if and when the editing gets hot. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no mystery as to why people worshipped Rawat. It's all clearly spelled out in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal. But to save any confusion, here it is - Scholars have claimed that Rawat's teaching springs from the Indian Sant tradition, as embodied in the Sant Mat, Advait Mat and Radhasoami schools. Sant teachings are distinguished theologically by a loving devotion to a divine principle, universalism, equality, direct experience, rejection of ritual and dogma, and by attempts to reconcile conflicting doctrines (syncretism). Sants hold that true religion is a matter of surrendering to God "who dwells in the heart," and that the Guru or Perfect Master is "an embodiment of God on Earth, a fitting object of worship and veneration." Kabir, the 15th century poet wrote: "Guru and God both appear before me. To whom should I prostrate? I bow before Guru who introduced God to me". Could it be any clearer.Momento 22:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I love a conspiracy theory as much as anyone but are you really saying that Lipner, Julius J. (Hindus: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices), Kabir, Melton, David Lane, Kranenborg etc. are all conspiring to provide a fictitious history for Rawat and his father? As for the "He is God" concept, others were 100% to blame.Momento 01:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bio-proposal freely interprets Melton and Kranenborg due to your POV described hereabove. You committed WP:SYN. Please do not remove the quotes by them. Andries 07:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I researched and wrote most of the content of the Sant Mat article, a fascinating subject indeed. That article stands by the sources I researched, and if you have any additional material that would be wonderful. But to imply that I edited the article to make a point, well... the material there is meticulously sourced and footnoted. Could it be that some people prefer to complain about the work of others and insist in discussing their opinions rather than endeavor in research and editing? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The dispute about this entry will never stop as long as you try to push the here above described POV. Andries 09:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I am talking about the set of entries related to Prem Rawat and the continous disputes about them, especially related to the claims of divinity. Andries 09:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It may be my English. With "entry" I mean "lemma" i.e. Wikipedia article. Andries 10:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Half of this talk page is filled with disputes about claims of divinity and I have also posted on your talk page about it and you reacted to it. Did somebody else log in under Momento's name? Andries 10:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Lemma is an encyclopedia article such as this one. I found it so difficult to believe that you do not know or remember what I meant that I started to believe that somebody else logged in under your name. Andries 10:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Invitation for comment on a discussion which pertains to this article

message: Why are we keep discussing Hummel? We are citing him in the article alongside other theologians and scholars, and we are providing context for these scholars by describing their allegiances. Let's keep it at that and move one, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. We should not be assessing bias or lack of bias of scholars. Let's provide the information, alongside the scholar allegiances and that would be fine. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that Rumiton's highly misguided comments show the real problem with using non-English sources i.e. that assessing their reliability is very difficult for non-English speakers. Again, the quoted 1980 book was Hummel's research commission by the Heidelberg uni which gave him the right to lecture there. It was not financed by the EZW of which Hummel only became its leader in 1981. His  opposition against the German word "sekte" and "Jugendreligion"/youth religion strongly indicates that he was neither a counter cult activist but that he had anti-anti-cult views. Andries 19:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hummel was a Lutheran pastor at the time of writing and that should be sufficient.We don't have the space to give his other positions. Be aware that Vassanya's GA recommendations are for a much smaller article as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal   Perhaps time would be better spent looking at that article.Momento 21:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The proposal at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prem_Rawat/Bio_proposal is looking very good. With "merciless editing" this "bloated" and "too long" article of 89 kilobytes has been reduced to 33 kilobytes as per Vassanya's helpful advice. Aiming for the end of the month. Please give opinions in editor's section.Momento 23:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hummel (continuation)

message: For weeks now we have been asking Vassayana to address specific concerns and it seems that he may not have time to answer or is unable due to technical difficulties. The problem is that these questions rapidly get buried by further discussion, we repeat them and they get buried again etc. It's becoming quite tiresome for me now. Should we invite other people...if so how? And what should their qualifications be, to have their opinions respected as apparently Vassayana's are? Is it just that they should be impartial and a Wikipedia administrator or what? Is there some sort of official mediatator we can call upon?PatW 07:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vassayana is back since a coup,e of days ago, and left you messages in your talk page. The review of the bio proposal Vassayana submitted yesterday is here. Vassayana is acting as an informal mediator, and I understand that this has been accepeted de facto by participants, and respected in that capacity for his disinterested and objective evaluation of articles and proposals. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As for "official" mediation, I would argue that we are quite well good with Vassyana's help. For more information about WP's dispute resolution process beyond informal mediation (which is part of the dispute resolution process), see WP:DR.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Vassayana ever going to address our questions? 

message: (Momento's article)
'However, his appearance in Indian dress at an event on December 20th, 1976 in Atlantic City, New Jersey, signaled a resurgence of Indian influence. Rawat was elevated to a much greater place in the practice of Knowledge, many people returned to Ashram life and there was a shift from secular tendencies towards ritual and messianic beliefs and practices.' 
(Downton)
To the surprise of everyone who had come to the Atlantic City program at the close of 1976, Guru Maharaj Ji appeared in his Krishna costume, a majestic looking robe and crown he had not worn since 1975. The sight of him in his ceremonial best brought premies to their feet singing, as nostalgia for the early days caught them up in feelings of devotion once more.... Again, the guru appeared in his Krishna costume and, again, the old devotional songs were sung. The atmosphere was reminiscent of 1972, as Initiators began to spread the word that the time had come for a renewal of dedication and devotion to "their Lord." Acting as the vanguard for the charismatic revival, they were the first to speak again of the guru as "Messiah," a statement premies apparently wanted to hear, for since then one of the key messages at satsang has been that the guru is indeed the Lord, for premies believe he is capable of transmitting his inner light with such power as to awaken the spirit lying dormant in others.
My point is that the replacement of the word 'Krishna costume' with 'Indian Dress' changes the meaning significantly. Why? Because (although the original quote is supplied in the refs below) the immediate impression is that Rawat just came onstage in ordinary Indian clothes. Hardly suggestive that he was the Lord. Of course the truth of the matter is that Rawat   perfectly understood the 'ritual' implications of donning the costume of the Hindu Avatar Lord Krishna. If Momento had used the words 'Krishna Costume' millions of Hindus (and other educated readers) would understand that this alone was a statement by Rawat that he considered himself a worthy Krishna-type figure and was encouraging his audience to believe that (or to encourage them in their dormant beliefs about him as that.)  Momento chooses to change the meaning to something quite different.  Rawat came on in Indian Dress (maybe a dhoti or something?) and all the silly premies decided that he was the Lord.  Yes, it's a subtle innuendo, but it's there...  and it's another example of how Downton's reports are  paraphrased to project a POV that suggests Rawat did not encourage this stuff. Sure he did.
I have to say that, as someone who witnessed all this, even Downton's reports seem to underplay Rawat's part.  I think that this is partly due to the fact that his book is conceived as  an analysis of the social phenomenon of 'premies' and not so much about Rawat personally. He repeatedly stresses the observation that Rawat was essentially the projection (creation)  of premies expectations. That is fair enough. He is generally uncritical of Rawat's part and sees him as fundamentally sincere. (which I also can go along with).  He doesn't talk to Rawat and his analysis of him is restricted to what he gleans through interviewing followers. He even admits he does not know Rawat's motives. eg regarding his lifestyle:
While we can partially explain Guru Maharaj Ji's lifestyle in terms of collective dynamics, another point of view would question why he has accepted the luxuries premies have gladly given him. Several explanations could be offered: that he is following tradition; that he recognizes his followers' need to elevate him to a point where he becomes the ideal to emulate; that he sees no conflict between his lifestyle and his spiritual mission; and that he is not attached to the comforts surrounding him. Of course, there is also the possibility that he is ambitious and materialistic, as so many people believe.
In fact Downton , although drawing many conclusions from his study of premies, is consistently at pains to say how unclear Rawat's part  is in the picture actually is, beyond being an icon or spiritual guide:
It is unclear even today whether Guru Maharaj Ji sees his followers as his spiritual equals, who need only reach his level of enlightenment, for he has made contradictory statements on the issue. On the one hand, he has said that when his followers reach the point where they have learned A, B, and C, then he will already have gone to a new level of perfection of D, E, and F.16 This puts him forever beyond the reach of his followers, possibly prolonging their dependence on him for guidance and discouraging their ultimate autonomy.
Downton is a good resource on premies from that time but he is not so lucid about Rawat himself. Actually I think Collier is slightly better on that front.PatW 01:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What efforts made Downton to study Rawat as a person? Did Rawat and Downton talk to each other. Did Downton interview people who were close to Rawat about Rawat? Did Downton study Rawat's speeches? Andries 02:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ed conf) I don't know. But even if he did not any of these things, what would that be a reason to dismiss him as a source? Or should we remove all your loved Dutch scholars's sources for the same reason? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the subject of the research is not this article then we should be very careful. Again, I continue to state my opinion that there is no extensive reliable source for this article. Andries 03:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, Andries. I have heard that baseless argument way too many times to take it seriously. Please read WP:POINT in case you have forgotten about it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why baseless? An analogy. If I am a specialized in pressure and a have a peer reviewed physics article about pressure published in a journal about pressure, but I also make some remarks about electromagnetics then there is reason to be cautious about using my remarks about electromagnetics as a reputable source. Andries 03:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you being serious, Andries? Are you saying that we need to be cautious about all the comments made by all the scholars in this article, or any other biographical article in which such sources are used? If that is the case, you may be in a serious need to brush up on basic Wikipedia content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A secondary source is not very reputable if the person who wrote it did not study the subject, because his or her focus of research was something else. To me this sounds very logical and natural. There is no reliable source that has as its main focus Rawat. Andries 03:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The art of understatement (by Momento)

message: I'm surprised my comment to PatW that "I think you're hankering for the olden days" is considered snarky, sharply critical; cutting; snide. When in this section alone people have said the following about me without one hint of censure - "You are wrong in everything what you write, you omit and distort sources, you use 'weasel' words, your reasoning is so absurd, you are just time-wasting with your absurd reasoning and persistent dishonesty and your brazen affrontery, the utter nonsense you're spouting, stop insulting our intelligence with this kind of vacuous histrionic reasoning, with logic like yours we should for one minute trust your neutrality,  your well-exercised paranoia, your neutrality is completely exposed as being non-existant, the wriggly Momento, your flawed way of reasoning,  your habit of distorting and omitting sources and too much re-interpretation, you rewrite the true historical facts and are snarky and sarcastic". I don't need to be sharply critical. That job is well and truely taken.Momento 11:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I will not lecture as it is not needed, as editors' actions and words speak for themselves. After a while patterns emerge for all to see. I would just hope that you stop speaking in "we" speak, and speak for yourself. Now, if editors can now change lanes and start working in improving this encyclopedia, that would be a good thing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Archive or not, it doesn't matter one way or another to me, but being stuck on dial-up here in Podunk, VT makes for a long, tedious page load lately.  Let's get back to editing the article.  :-) Sylviecyn 15:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Snarky

message: I think Andries new version is already substantially better than the current version although it is longer at 6819 words versus 6592 words for the current version (the proposal is 2500 words).Momento 23:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Versions, versions, versions

message: Please see Template talk:Prem Rawat.  Smee 08:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI 

message: Created new article on book, Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji?.  Was pleased I was able to find lots of reputable citations for this article.  Further discussion can go on the article's talk page, but thought you would like to know.  Smee 10:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I left some comments in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI 

message: *Now try us - It has a different structure to the article, that is quite interesting.  Smee 00:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh... that is just one old version of the article picked up by one of the many Wikipedia:Forks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird fork 

message: Kronenborg reports that ex-premie Lammers complained that when Rawat arrived at the hotel "he locked himself in the hotel room with "security-premies"". Now I know some people may prefer to sleep in the lobby or wait around in the corridors, but I'm afraid I must agree with Rawat on this one. I like to go straight to my room and close the door behind me, which in most cases locks automatically. If it didn't lock automatically I would follow the advice of hotels and travellers the world over and lock it myself. Well done Andries for finding this priceless gem. I suppose another complaint will be that Rawat watched TV and went out later and did some shopping. What a scandal!Momento 04:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had not finished the translation. Sorry for the confusion it caused. Andries 17:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Editors need to be careful of the fallacy of quoting out of context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not remember ever having written this. I think Momento mistakenly attributes this sentence as my edit. Andries 17:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I see your point.  I wasn't intending to voice a pro or con opinion about whether the sources should stay in.  None of the scholars/sources had first-hand observation of Rawat's childhood, so I think it's important to stick to what's consistently known and reported about Rawat about that specific issue.  You're right, all accounts I've ever heard depict PR as being very devoted to Shri Maharaji and K as a small child. It is difficult to make an assessment without being able to read the source's language.  Hope this explains.  Sylviecyn 10:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hilarious

message: My Dutch translator tells me Tussen stigma en charisma: nieuwe religieuze bewegingen en geestelijke volksgezondheid would be best translated as "Between Stigma (prob. in the biblical sense, the wound marks identifying Christ = stigmata) and Charisma: new religious movements and the spiritual health of the community". Andries happily translates the last as "mental health" and ignores the overall message and POV, which is that of a profoundly biased Christian churchman. Rumiton 14:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was written by the sociologist Paul Schnabel whom I believe is not a Christian. Here is the translation of the title of his Phd dissertation "Between stigma and charisma. New religious and mental health"Andries 17:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Where did you get the PhD title from? It is at odds with the title you gave us. Tussen stigma en charisma, and so forth.Rumiton 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Why do you think that Paul Schnabel was a Christian? Andries 17:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He may not be a priest but if this is the title of his article, he leaves no doubt as to where his allegiance lies.Momento 01:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The title of Paul Schnabel's Phd dissertation is Tussen stigma en charisma: nieuwe religieuze bewegingen en geestelijke volksgezondheid in English Between stigma and charisma: new religious movements and mental health. Why do you think Schnabel is a Christian? I think that your comments are misguided, but it takes a lot of time to explain this which I will not try because it is not so important for the article. Feel free to ask other Dutch people. For example, "stigma" in the title refers to the bad reputation of many new religious movements. It has nothing to do with Christianity. Andries 05:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If you do not believe anything that I write then I think I can better stop giving replies to you. I strongly disagree with the translation "Spiritual Health". It should be "mental health". Andries 15:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Both [[Contextomy]] and Lousy Translation.

message: One thing I feel is needed in all the versions is a more direct and sympathetic appraisal of the dilemmas that have occurred when a master of the Sant Tradition, in which Prem Rawat is steeped, enters a different culture, be it Holland, Australia or Cote d'Ivoire. I doubt whether any scholar looked at this situation in the 70s, but I would like to try to deal with it now. It won't be a simple thing, but I think it is a crucial issue for many and resolving it satisfactorily might mean the difference between a life of constant edit warring (or the threat thereof) and a stable article. (And I can go fishing at night again.) Rumiton 13:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Downton and Collier are the experts for the 70s.Momento 16:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Sant Conundrum

message: I've put some serious thought into the conflicts here, particularly over sources. There are a large number of available reliable sources regarding Prem Rawat. We don't have to scrounge for references, as there are more than enough, ranging from gushing to dispassionate to hostile. Extreme minority views of topics are supposed to be excluded from those topics' articles. References used should be verifiable to an Anglophone reader. Both of those being true, I have two suggestions. 
*Claims in foreign language sources must be verifiable in an English-language reference or a traditionally published English translation.
*All facts included must be supported by two or more reliable sources. A source repeating another is not a valid second source. A second in-line citation is not necessary, but a second source should be provided if someone challenges the claim.
This will only exclude unsupported exceptional claims, extreme minority views and information which is not verifiable to a reader of the English Wikipedia. This would also ensure that the information included is clearly supported by the references. Thoughts? Vassyana 17:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with non-English sources is not verifiability but assessment of their reputability. For example, some statements about Van der Lans and Schnabel on this talk page are utterly misguided. I can state whatever I want about them but this seesm not to help because people do not trust me. Andries 21:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem with non-English sources is not reputabilty either, it is context. We don't have it. We don't know the cultural background in which these articles were first written, mostly 30 years ago in a foreign country, and we don't know the full articles or dissertations of which they are excerpts. As a result of trying to deal with your inclusions from Dutch and German clerics, I have had to do a lot of research into modern European religious history, Catholic and Protestant, Dutch Reformed Church etc. and spend rather a lot of money purchasing obscure books. I have no interest in this subject at all, but I needed to find out the background for their apparent hostility towards NRMs. I also needed to check your translations of their titles and texts. I have worked as a professional translator and I know you must have the cultural context of any piece of writing before you know which tone to choose for your translation. It isn't so much that I don't trust you, Andries, but I can see clearly that you have strong personal feelings against Eastern Religions (and probably you have good reasons to feel that way.) But these feelings color your word choices. For example, you persist in using the word "cult," which is highly dated and perjorative. It is like calling black Americans "colored folk" or "negroes." The neutral term New Religious Movement is better, though in Prem Rawat's case it is probably inappropriate. The Sant Mat movement to which he belongs appears to be about as old as Islam. Similarly you speak of being "too lenient" towards cults. Lenient is a term applied almost exclusivly to punishment. Would you use the term in an article about Buddhism? It is disrespectful and not appropriate here. It creates a hostile working environment.
I agree with Vassyana's suggestions. From my personal experience of the last few weeks I would prefer to disallow all foreign language sources, but in an imperfect world I can accept this as a reasonable compromise. Rumiton 09:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's appropriate to be judging the credibility of a source based upon their religion.  That goes way beyond context and the subject of this article.  It seems like a dicey slippery slope to me, and to use a source's religious affiliation as a reason to discredit their material is just incorrect, because that's not the subject of this article.  What's Cagan's religion, for instance, and why is it that her book is so pro-Rawat?  I'd like to explore Cagan's religious affiliation to the same extent you are proposing on other published writers.  See my point?  These people are scholars of religions, not religious scholars.  Momento was incorrect to say "someone is a Christian first, scholar second" because there's no basis by which to make that claim about someone without evidence.  Besides, once again, this article is "Prem Rawat" not "Joe Bloe" scholar of nrms.  Many of the scholars, like Melton, are affiliated with Christian organizations, but where the rubber meets the road, if they have been published, that means they're reliable sources and that needs to be accepted without this guilt by association type of rationaliztion for excluding any particular published source.  Their religions are immaterial to this subject, and I would think that it goes beyond adding context. To put so much attention on the religious affiliation of these people is original research for purposes of this article.  It constitutes editorializing their religious beliefs and how that effects their writings about Prem Rawat.  It's a highly questionable writing tactic, isn't NPOV, and needs to stop.  I'd like to remind people of the wiki saying about being mercilessly edited.  You guys chose to put your draft live by taking a vote, not by reaching concensus.  And don't forget, something isn't libel if it's true.  :)  Sylviecyn 12:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with the most of what you say here. My objections to a limited few were based on their demonstrated biases, such as Kranenborg's advice on how to evangelize premies. I have no objection to Melton whatsoever, as while he has a POV and bias, he has not demonstrated an explicit bias. Also, please note that while I objected to the evangelizing advice and extreme minority claims, that I have not objected to Kranenborg as an overall source. If he independently verifies other sources, or vice-versa, there's no reason to exclude his claims. Their faith is fairly immaterial, but their stated bias is material. I do not believe this is the same, as some of the best religious scholars and theologians in the world, including the study of "pagan" faiths and NRMs, are life-long Catholic priests. Vassyana 13:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of scholars who have written extensively about Rawat is so limited that a statement by one scholar is never an "extreme minority claim". Not a single extensive reputable biography exists of Rawat. In the case when there are multiple reliable scholarly biographies, such as e.g. Adolf Hitler it is possible to identify "extreme minority claims". Andries 13:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are dozens of reliable references about, and including reasonable amounts of information about, Rawat, DLM and Elan Vital, written from a wide variety of persepctives. A single source claim is definitely an "extreme minority claim". Vassyana 15:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I have yet to find one single reliable source that extensively treats Rawat's life. The focus of religious scholars etc. was never Rawat, but always the DLM. Andries 15:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with most of what Sylviecyn wrote. But the subject is not mathematics or physics, so in practice, but not in theory, even religious scholars and psychologists of religions who attempted to write neutrally and who are affiliated with respected academic institutions (or published in universitity magazines about religious movements) like Melton, Kranenborg, Hummel, Van der Lans, Haan  have some bias. I have yet to find one religious scholar who is devoid of bias in his writings. I think the bias of the follower Geaves is much bigger than all the others. Andries 12:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments to Sylvie above and to you below. Additionally, using Geaves is comparing apples and oranges. Geaves is used to verify non-contentious claims in harmony with the majority of sources. If Geaves were used to support a unique claim, or that of a very small minority, I would equally object to his bias and use. Vassyana 13:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's incorrect, Vassyana. The majority of sources don't have to be in harmony with each other.  Where did you get that policy?  Ron Geaves is used by adherents to further promote a pro-Rawat POV.  He also happens to be a decades-long devotee of Rawat who puts a positive spin on Rawat in his writings about the same.  This statement of yours about apples and oranges, confirms to me that you don't understand the nuances of this subject well enough to judge the article at all.  Once again, reliable sources don't have to be neutral (who ever said that?!?) if they are reliable sources, and there's no policy that states the requirement of many, or multiple sources to be in harmony.  That's an unusual interpretation of NPOV.  Thanks. Sylviecyn 15:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:UNDUE. Please review all of my recent comments re: bias and this issue. Vassyana 15:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: None of the writers that I cited have a generalized hostility towards Hinduism, or cults or new religious movements. I have been very careful not to use these writers. Some of the writers that I used  voiced trenchant criticism towards the DLM or Prem Rawat. This trenchant criticism does not invalidate the reputability of their writings. I have used the publications of respected Dutch or German religious scholars where they tried to be neutrally, not their publications for their churches. I do not even know these writings. I have made only one exception to that i.e. Kranenborgs self-admitted Christian statement that he had clearly segregated in another section. Andries 11:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for sources 

message: Andries claims he's "fed up with Momento's behavior of repeated reverts of statements sourced to multiple reliable sources". And demonstrates this by reverting the work of several editors in order to insert "One religious scholar argued..."!!! Hold on Andries, since when has "one scholar" been "multiple sources"? No wonder you're fed up with my editing. And I won't mention the two grammatical errors you introduced in just four sentences or the OR you created by blending two quotes. Andries you obviously don't care enough about this article to follow Wiki policies, English grammar or even your own rules.Momento 17:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, may be that one statement was sourced to one scholar, but others were not. And I can most probably find a corroboration from another source. Melton comes close to what this one religious scholar Hummel wrote. Feel free to correct the grammar in my additions, but do not remove them without good reason. Why this nitpicking about my small mistakes when your mistake of removing statements that you do not like is huge. Andries 17:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, Rumiton, Vassyana, SylvieCyn it's time to ban Andries from editing this article. His above statement admits his mistake, tells me to correct his grammar and not to nitpick his small mistakes and then he simply reverts back to his mistake filled edit without correcting it. Enough is enough.Momento 17:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know what grammatical errors you refer to. But it takes so little effort to fix grammatical errors in my additions. That is not a valid excuse to remove all of my additions. Andries 17:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think labeling the public page of this article as "locked etc" is an unfair imposition on this article and the reading public. I'm more than happy to promise to take a week off from this article. I'm sure Andries would be happy to while our mediation is settled.Momento 23:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit warring is not the solution to article disputes. Article protection is not imposed on every battle, so to speak. It has been asked many times for the edit warring to cease in this article. Sometimes it is quieted for a while, but the edit wars here are recurring, along with the finger-pointing and poisonous atmosphere that accompanies them. The protection lasts for one week. You may take a break, try to reconcile with other editors, build up other articles, etc. All that cannot be done is editing the main article while the protection is in place. The article isn't going to go anywhere during the week. :) Relax, stay cool and do what you think is best during the week off from the mainspace article. Vassyana 03:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not like the protection either. If both Andries and Momento agree to not edit the article until during the next week, I will be happy to unprotect it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would seem appropriate. Vassyana 13:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have not seen any point in editing the main article while it has been so unstable, so I have made the few changes I thought were useful to the Bio Proposal instead. I will continue doing this, so it doesn't matter much to me whether the main article is locked or not. But somehow, this issue must be resolved. (See all my recent comments on context, unverifiable foreign language cites, single sources, extraordinary POVs, straw man arguments, not a good Hindu, etc.) Rumiton 12:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to fight anymore.  I'm too old for this and life is too short.  I'm disappointed that the article needed to be locked and with all the edit-warring.  I hope everybody can step back and take a chill pill.  I dunno.  If folks can't control themselves and keep revert-warring, maybe it should stay locked for the week. It wouldn't be the end of the world.  I was gonna do some basic copy-editing this week on the article that wouldn't affect the content.  That certainly can wait a week. Revert wars don't accomplish anything.  Sylviecyn 19:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving right along

message: ... per request on WP:RPP. Keep your promises! - Alison ☺ 19:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article unprotected 

message: Having been forced into the role of editor because the circularities of Wikipedia, I’ve read far more of the Rawat articles than I could ever have wanted to. As what I was  seeking from October of last year is now largely, at least by default, apparently accepted by most editors, I’m going allow myself the luxury of commenting on wider aspects of the Rawat articles. The first thing that I think should be absolutely clear is that were it not for Andries there would be no Rawat related Wikipedia content at all worthy of the term encyclopaedia. Secondly the Momento rewrite is a semantic confabulum that is near unworkable as a basis for any kind of neutral article – losing critical academic references only exacerbates the imbalance. I’ve provided a list of challenges [] to Momento’s rhetoric but I’m doubtful that even with all of those addressed that a neutral article could be cut free from the present text.
--Nik Wright2 13:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also take exception with these comments, in particular about Andries assignation. Most of the scholarly sources and material were researched, and edited not by Andries, but myself and other editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a lot of scholarly article. I may not be nr 1, but I am certianly nr. 2 in this respect. Andries 17:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: As for the "challenges" presented, these can be addressed quite simply by looking through the archives. These "challenges" have been already answered in one way or another already, nothing new under the sun. Nevertheless, editors will surely comment again. To avoid duplication I would suggest to address them there rather than here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)<;/small> 15:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You raise excellent points, Nik.  I would add that there is no resume of Rawat's from which to quote in the Personal Section.  The footnote for the that section leads to the current Maharaji.org, which could be confusing to any reader who doesn't know how to use the Way Back Machine to obtain the older 1999 website as designed by Jossi for Maharaji back then as it states. There's no resume there either, so I'd say another souce needs to be provided for all that personal info if one's available.  Sylviecyn 10:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was already discussed and explained to you before. His resume was published and it was sourced then and it is verifiable.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, you explained it, but I never agreed.  You unilaterally decided it was an adequate source, when in fact, there's no resume on that site, and your name is on it, so I would think it's original research.  Plus, unless someone knows how to use the Way Back Machine, the link takes them to the current Maharaji dot net or org. Sylviecyn 22:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can disagree, if you want. But that does not change the fact is that the resume was published on PR's website and it is verifiable. That is all we need to comply with WP:V.   ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Added link to the web.archive.org (Wayback machine) for that page, for easy verifiability. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I will let Vassyana respond to your questions as it is more likely that you will accept his opinion rather than mine. In the future,  note that if you want a a specific editor to respond to questions, it is more appropriate to ask these questions at that editor's talk page rather than in an article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe your concerns, as raised on the draft talk, reflect a concern for truthful reporting, which I can appreciate. However, regardless of what you know and regardless of what gaps in information there may be, we must rely on verifiable reliable sources. We cannot rely on our own direct knowledge or opinion. If the majority of sources put forth facts/claims, that must be the main focus of the article. If there is a reasonable minority of sources that put forth claims, they can be included in proportion and used as a contrast to the "mainstream" of the sources. If there is a single source claim, it should be put under great scrutiny. If it is contradictory to the majority of sources, or posits an unusual claim, it must be supported by additional sources or excluded. (Obviously scale these considerations to the amount of references available on the subject.) Quotes should be avoided as they tend to multiply and turn articles into quote farms. I understand this can be restricting and frustrating. For example, I am incredibly familiar with Mantak Chia, however my own observations and criticisms cannot be used as a basis for a biographical article. I must continue to seek proper references if I wish to expand that article. I hope that helps clarify my own opinion. If you have further questions, feel free to ask. Vassyana 19:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vassyana. My concern was not about the difference between 'what I know' and 'what the sources say' - I fully understand that everything in a wikipedia article has to be drawn from a reputable source. Rather I'm concerned about how sources are used. As far as I'm concerned the only logical (and indeed honest) way is to take the evidence (as given in the sources) and compile an article as a reasoned construct of that evidence. My understanding of what others are saying is that the Wikipedia process is actually simply jemmying the references in to fit the article as it is written. 
I've posted a series of suggested amemdments based on achieving semantic and rhetorical neutrality on the bio proposal -[] I have included some limited factual amendments/additions with accompanying references but the largest problem I see is that the existing text frequently does not match the evidence presented by the given reference. I understand the wish not to quote the source verbatim, but the meaning of text and reference must surely concur ?
I'll leave the amendments for comment - but what is the status of the bio proposal - am I free to amend that ? am I free to amend the current article ? The process here is less than clear. Some edits are being made to the main article but not to the bio proposal - which should we be discussing ?
--Nik Wright2 16:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The state of the Rawat articles

message: Vassanya. I’ve placed this here because the issues seem to me to be about principles which go to the heart of the ongoing difficulties with the Rawat articles – please shift elsewhere if you deem it appropriate. Wherever the discussion takes place I think it would be helpful if you could add your comments.
At []  Jossi wrote:
We are describing what secondary published sources say about this subject. You will need to read the sources provided. In Wikipedia that is what we do: report on what secondary sources say, and that is what we have done. I would suggest you take some time and read our content policies and guidelines, in particular WP:V and WP:RS in this regard. This applies to many of what you call your challenges, namely: Formation of the DLM, conflict with family, regaining control of DLM in India by his mother, moving away for Indian trappings, and DECA, disbanding of DLM, closing the ashrams, BBS, Rotary, and others. All these are supported by multiple scholarly sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will let Vassyana respond to your questions as it is more likely that you will accept his opinion rather than mine. In the future,  note that if you want a a specific editor to respond to questions, it is more appropriate to ask these questions at that editor's talk page rather than in an article's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe your concerns, as raised on the draft talk, reflect a concern for truthful reporting, which I can appreciate. However, regardless of what you know and regardless of what gaps in information there may be, we must rely on verifiable reliable sources. We cannot rely on our own direct knowledge or opinion. If the majority of sources put forth facts/claims, that must be the main focus of the article. If there is a reasonable minority of sources that put forth claims, they can be included in proportion and used as a contrast to the "mainstream" of the sources. If there is a single source claim, it should be put under great scrutiny. If it is contradictory to the majority of sources, or posits an unusual claim, it must be supported by additional sources or excluded. (Obviously scale these considerations to the amount of references available on the subject.) Quotes should be avoided as they tend to multiply and turn articles into quote farms. I understand this can be restricting and frustrating. For example, I am incredibly familiar with Mantak Chia, however my own observations and criticisms cannot be used as a basis for a biographical article. I must continue to seek proper references if I wish to expand that article. I hope that helps clarify my own opinion. If you have further questions, feel free to ask. Vassyana 19:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vassyana. My concern was not about the difference between 'what I know' and 'what the sources say' - I fully understand that everything in a wikipedia article has to be drawn from a reputable source. Rather I'm concerned about how sources are used. As far as I'm concerned the only logical (and indeed honest) way is to take the evidence (as given in the sources) and compile an article as a reasoned construct of that evidence. My understanding of what others are saying is that the Wikipedia process is actually simply jemmying the references in to fit the article as it is written. 
I've posted a series of suggested amemdments based on achieving semantic and rhetorical neutrality on the bio proposal -[] I have included some limited factual amendments/additions with accompanying references but the largest problem I see is that the existing text frequently does not match the evidence presented by the given reference. I understand the wish not to quote the source verbatim, but the meaning of text and reference must surely concur ?
I'll leave the amendments for comment - but what is the status of the bio proposal - am I free to amend that ? am I free to amend the current article ? The process here is less than clear. Some edits are being made to the main article but not to the bio proposal - which should we be discussing ?
--Nik Wright2 16:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Principles of Neutrality in Language