Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 21

message: I got a copy of David V. Barret's 2001 edition of the book The New Believers (Cassell Illustrated, ), in which there is a full section (about six pages) on Prem Rawat and related organizations, practices, beliefs, evolution of the movement,  etc. I am rather surprised that we did not came across this source before, as it contains good material not available in other reliable sources that we have so far used in the article. I will be soon transcribing some excerpts of the book here, so that we can explore how to include material from this book in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another study 

message: I understand that the detractors known as "ex-premies" have purchased a subscription to NewspaperARCHIVE.com,   made copies of newspaper clippings from the 70's and early 80's and in violation of terms and conditions of these archives created fascimiles of these clippings and posted them in one of their websites:
You (or "your" defined by your status as an adult user and/or parent or guardian for any minor which you allow to use the Service) may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute in any way any amount of material from this site including, but not limited to, all documents, images, written material, code and software. You may download Content from this site for your personal, non-commercial use only, provided you abide by all copyright and other proprietary notices and keep any and all Content intact.
Any attempt to link to such copywright violations will be mercilessly deleted from this and related articles. See WP:COPY.  ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deletion means violating ofWikipedia:Citing_sources#Intermediate_sources:_State_where_you_got_it. Andries 22:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: OK. These additions will need to be deleted, as we cannot link to copyvios and they will fail WP:V without them. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everybody can buy these articles, so they are perfectly fulfill WP:V. Andries 22:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Intermediate sources is something totally different. An intermediate source is when  author A cites autor B and you want to quote author B. In these cases you need to specify that you found the quote in author's A works. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh really, then I misunderstood. Andries 22:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: In any case, I was able to link to the fascimiles thumbnails of newspaperarchive.com, so we are OK for WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Tom, linking is not required. They are Wikipedia:convenience links. Andries 21:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Surely this statement is not meant to be taken as a medical diagnosis but as a sympathetic and euphemistic way of saying he drank alcohol to excess and that is how readers will understand it. Tgubler 21:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the suggestion that he drank to excess? You have demonstrated the ambiguity of Mishler's comment, which is why it should be removed.Momento 05:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  In Soul Rush by Sophia Collier she writes that Bob Mishler told her that Maharaji got "sloshed" during Millenium 73 and that certainly sounds like excess when you consider he was only 15. As Mishler was not an apostatye at the time but the President of Divine Light Mission and Prem Rawat's right hand man ther is no reason to doubt the statement. Tgubler 21:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  From the book, we do not know when Mr. Mishler said that to Mrs. Collier. I am sure many of us got "sloshed" when we were 15... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I am interested in Tgubler's quaint notion of the appropriate age for getting "sloshed". Should it come before becoming Perfect Master or after?Momento 09:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detractors copyvios 

message: As I have accepted a position in a related organization, I may reduce the level of my involvement in editing this and related articles from now on.
Nevertheless, I intend to continue to actively monitor these articles for vandalism, correct mistaken or out-of-date facts, provide new material attributable to reliable sources, and engage other editors in the talk pages for discussions on how to better these articles. I also intend to continue enforcing talk-page discipline and the policy of Wikipedia:Biographies of living people when needed. If I make any contributions to these articles, I  will exercise extra caution by ensuring that my edits are in full compliance with Wikipedia content policies.
As there are occasional contributors who have publicly declared their intention to vandalize this article and  disrupt the editing process, note that I will not hesitate in resuming my previous level of involvement in editing these articles at any time to stop such efforts. I will do the same if I perceive any type of malicious or disruptive editing behavior.
For those editors that are genuinely interested in making these articles better, I invite them to continue making useful contributions within the content policies of Wikipedia, while engaging other editors and myself in constructive talk page discussions. 
A copy of this disclosure is also available at User:Jossi/Disclaimer ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disclosure 

message: I am afraid that after a close reading of this article I have to say that it is significantly inaccurate and is not written from an NPOV and that there is much information in it that cannot be verified. I am relying on the Wikipedia guidelines re NPOV, Biographies of Living Persons, Verifiability and Accuracy in judging the quality of this article. Rather than going straight into editing and improving it I am giving other editors an opportunity for discussion. I also understand that there are Wiki guidelines re the conflicts of interest and I am concerned that some editors here are students of Prem Rawat and are unable to maintain an NPOV on the subject of their Master.
The introduction to an article is of particular importance and this one fails significantly.
“He has, since the age of four,[2] been addressing people around the world on the subject of finding peace within and says that he is able to offer a practical way to do so” - Prem Rawat has not been addressing people “around the world” since the age of 4. He only addressed people in India before 1971. Up until the 1980's or later he was not talking about finding “peace within”, he was using different terminology completely. In 'Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji' it states he first gave satsang about “realizing God”. Up until the mid 1980's he was claiming to “reveal God”, “bring Peace to the World”, etc, etc.
“He calls this method "Knowledge" and describes it as taking "all your senses that have been going outside all your life, turn them around and put them inside to feel and to actually experience you".[3]“ I believe this should read “and in 19xx described it as “. Prem Rawat's teachings have evolved considerably over the last 40 years and these changes should be highlighted with specific periods mentioned when quoting him.
“At the age of six, he was revealed these techniques of "Knowledge"” This should be altered to read His father revealed these techniques of “”Knowledge” to Prem Rawat and his brothers in 1963 as is explained in 'Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji'
“began taking his message to people throughout the Indian subcontinent” - There is no evidence given in the reference that Prem Rawat spent any time traveling throughout the Indian subcontinent. If there is any such evidence it should be referenced. He was, after all, a schoolboy at the time.
“In 1971 he was invited to speak in London and Los Angeles and attracted substantial media attention, some of which referred to the 13-year-old as the "boy guru".[7]“
Who invited him? What sort of media attention did he attract? This should be expanded slightly to explain the invitation came from a handful of Western devotees and that the media attention was derisory and highly critical. The derisory media attention is easily referenced. I am unsure if there is any acceptable references to the status of his invitation. The evidence given in the 'Passages' video clearly shows that he did not respond to any specific invitation.
“talking about inner peace and teaching Knowledge” - He was not talking about “inner peace”, see above. He did not “teach Knowledge” whatever that means. He did not speak at “events”. He spoke at “festivals”, at public meetings, he spoke at meetings in private homes etc, etc. The use of Elan Vital jargon “events” is completely inappropriate when discussing his life in the 1970's.
“His marriage to a Westerner in 1974 precipitated a family rift” - Prem Rawat's mother was quite specific about the reasons she disinherited and disowned her youngest son. Her statements were widely reported in the Western Press and academic articles and include: her son's materialistic lifestyle, including a fondness for expensive homes and sports cars ... “He has always preached and recommended his devotees to live a life of vegetarianism, celibacy and abstaining from alcohol and all excessive forms of materialism. Now he himself is indulging and encouraging his devotees to eat meat, to get married and have sexual relations and to drink. He's not living a spiritual life, He's being a playboy.” “However, he declined to answer his mother's charges that he had started drinking alcoholic beverages, had begun eating meat instead of remaining a vegetarian, and had shown too much interest in sex.”
What evidence is there that there was a “slow dissolution of the Divine Light Mission”? - I recall the “dissolution” as being quite sudden and reasonably quick.
“promoting the same message and offering the same techniques of Knowledge.[12][12][12]” - According to The Prem Rawat Foundation, he has continued to promote a means to achieve a lifelong, individual experience of inner peace,[13] “ - Why this repetition 2 sentences apart? The article is lengthy enough as it is. In the 1970's he spoke of world peace, he spoke of realization of God, etc.
“Starting in 2001, he has been invited to address various institutions on the subject of peace,[14]” - It should be added that it is members of his organisation that has actively sought and requested these opportunities to speak at various institutions. Something like “Since 2001, Elan Vital has actively sought public forums where Prem Rawat can address various institutions on the subject of peace,”
“Rawat has attracted controversy for what his critics consider a lack of intellectual content in his teachings, leading a sumptuous lifestyle, and making what critics and religious scholars regarded as personal claims of divinity.” -
This should read “regard as personal claims of divinity”. While Prem Rawat no longer makes such claims publicly his critics and religious scholars have not changed their attitudes towards his personal claims of divinity.
“His résumé discusses skills in computer graphics, computer-aided design, and development of aviation software. He is listed as co-inventor on a US Patent for a world-time watch for aeronautic applications.[15] A US citizen since 1977,[16] he reports that he supports himself and his family as a private investor, and that he has contributed to the success of several startup companies in various industries, including software.[17]” - I see no references for any of these claims. Mention of his finances should also include references to the newspaper reports of legal evidence showing Prem Rawat received millions of dollars of DLM money in the early 1970's from donations and inheritances that provided him with the money for his sumptuous lifestyle and investment funds.
Childhood in India
“When he was six years old, his father taught him the techniques of Knowledge, including young Prem among his other students” - When Prem Rawat was six years old, his father gave his four sons  Knowledge. Prem Rawat is quoted in 'Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji': “"When I was six my Father gave me Knowledge with my brothers in the same room.“ This is the language used then and it is the appropriate language to use in discussing the event.
“which was unusual since it was not in accordance with Hindu tradition of primogeniture” - Primogeniture has nothing to do with Guru successorship. Hans Rawat was not the eldest son of Shri Swarupanand. Vivekananda and Brahmananda were not the sons of Sri Ramakrishna. This statement has no relevance.
“There is a witness account by Shri Hans' personal driver which refers to Shri Hans' request for Prem to succeed him.” - While I have no problem with this statement it is unsupported first person testimony and is redundant. As far as I know there is no dispute about the events of the succession and incarnation. However as Prem Rawat's personal experience of empowerment/incarnation is so dramatic and unusual it should be included. References to Prem Rawat's reminiscences 30 years later should be replaced with references to the published information available in the early 1970's.
“In October 1969 he sent a mahatma to London to begin teaching Knowledge on his behalf.“ - In October 1969 he sent Mahatma Gurucharnanand to London to begin revealing Knowledge. The terminology used was “revealing Knowledge”, or “giving Knowledge”, “teaching Knowledge” has not been used.
“According to the Dutch religious scholar and minister Reender Kranenborg, this speech called the Peace Bomb marked the start of the Maharaji's mission to the West.[29]” - As the so-called 'Peace Bomb' speech was so remarkable there should be quotes from it directly in the text or linked to it here and some discussion of it's more bombastic statements.
The 1970s
“and spoke at the first Glastonbury Festival, where he again offered people peace” - The only parts of his speech I have seen do not mention peace but only Knowledge. "Because I have got that Knowledge, I have got that Knowledge, I have got that thing and I can say you all that I can help mankind and everybody of you by giving that Knowledge." Is there a transcript or audio/video of this speech?
“and eldest brother, Satpal” - At that time his eldest brother was known as Bal Bhagwan Ji
“That year the organization held a multi-day event at Montrose, Colorado at which two thousand people attended.[citation needed]” - 'Who Is Guru Maharaj Ji' page 36 states that 6,000 people attended.
“In November 1973, DLM booked the Houston Astrodome for a three-day gathering coinciding with Shri Hans' birthday and called "Millennium '73".[31]” - Millenium 73 was an enormous watershed for DLM and requires far more text than this.
“In 1974, DLM was reporting that 60,000 individuals were practicing the techniques of Knowledge in the United Kingdom” - This is an extraordinary number of people. It is inconceivable that so many people could even have been initiated and as there was a tremendous drop-out rate in the early 70's there wouldn't have been that many “practising”. The reference is to a book called 'Soul Friend' by someone called Leech. What evidence is there that this claim has any basis in fact? United States statistics of the time are: On March 6, 1976  Associated Press reported that The Mission says it has initiated 50,000 into its ranks in this country since 1971, of whom 15,040 remain regular contributors. On Sept 22, 1976 Associated Press reported that Donations fell to $70,000 a month, although Joe Anctil the 43-year-old spokesman said 3,000 regular donors remain. And international numbers down from 6 million to 1.2 million. Presumably the other 4.8 million were following Mata Ji and Satpal.
Sophia Collier reported her views on Prem Rawat's divinity. She also reported that “(As I discovered later, we were not the only ones for whom some alcohol was the festival's high point. Bob Mishler told me Maharaj Ji got "sloshed."); “
“The marriage to a Westerner apparently precipitated a rift between Prem and his mother.” - Prem Rawat's mother was quite specific about the reasons she disinherited and disowned her youngest son. Her statements were widely reported in the Western Press and include: her son's materialistic lifestyle, including a fondness for expensive homes and sports cars ... He has always preached and recommended his devotees to live a life of vegetarianism, celibacy and abstaining from alcohol and all excessive forms of materialism. Now he himself is indulging and encouraging his devotees to eat meat, to get married and have sexual relations and to drink. He's not living a spiritual life, He's being a playboy. However, he declined to answer his mother's charges that he had started drinking alcoholic beverages, had begun eating meat instead of remaining a vegetarian, and had shown too much interest in sex. Prem Rawat then claimed his family had never accepted him as the Satguru and had never really understood what a Satguru is (Downton). Glen Whitaker in the 'Passages' video states that “Maharaji himself has taught about it, that  and I knew the family, I could see what was happening, that they saw it as the family business.“
“The first posters about Rawat in the early 1970s said, “Meditation is not what you think.”” - They also said 'Guru is Greater Than God' and 'Guru Reveals God' and 'The Second Coming'
“claims which Rawat denied in several interviews given to the press and on television”. - Prem Rawat made claims in front of his devotees that differed from some of his “denials” to the media. An NPOV discussion of this situation should give examples of both of these types of statements. It should also include discussion of the difference between the public exposition of the “Knoledge” and the inner exposition. Are there transcripts of the interview by Johnny Young available? Or "The Tomorrow Show, 1973?
“An FAQ of Elan Vital claims that statements about Guru and God are routinely pronounced by people in India.[49]” - This should read “A FAQ” but does Elan Vital provide any evidence that this is correct? If it doesn't this is just an unverifiable statement and should be removed.
That is a list of my initial concerns. There is also much that could be added that would provide a more accurate, verifiable and NPOV account of  Prem Rawat's tumultuous life and evolution in his exposition of “Knowledge” and teachings during the 1970's which are the most significant and eventful of his life.
Tgubler 22:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Wiki guidelines this article is 10 Kilobytes too long, so I'm all for removing stuff. And therefore I support Tom's suggestion on this sentence - “He has, since the age of four,[2] been addressing people around the world on the subject of finding peace within and says that he is able to offer a practical way to do so” - Prem Rawat has not been addressing people “around the world” since the age of 4".  So let's remove "around the world". Any objections?Momento 09:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would want to change this into "He has, since the age of four,[2] been addressing people around the world among others on the subject of finding peace within and says that he is able to offer a practical way to do so” The reason why I want to omit the word within is because he was also talking about "world peace", not just about "peace within". Andries 10:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objections in stating, as per Andries an Momento's suggestion, that: He has, since the age of four, been addressing people on the subject of peace and says that he is able to offer a practical way to do so. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I have two objections to this edit. 1) "among others???" what does that mean? and 2) PR may have mentioned "world peace" in passing but his message has always been about "finding peace within", that is what he offers. That "peace" can only be found "within" is a fundemental part of PR's message. Therefore "He has, since the age of four, been addressing people on the subject of finding peace within and says that he is able to offer a practical way to do so."Momento 19:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  I have read the Wiki guidelines on Conflict of Interest but cannot see their applicability to this article. You have been the major editor on this article and it has strayed very, very far from Wikipedia biographies of living persons policies. However as those policies are quite straightforward I am sure we will work together admirably and bring it back in line with Wikipedia policies. Tgubler 21:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  The article has been edited by a myriad of editors over more than two and a half years. Yes, I have provided many of the scolartly sources (together with User:Andries and others), but it is the result of extensive collaboration. The applicability of WP:COI is clearly explained in your talk page. I would prefer to keep it there, and use this talk page to discuss the article. I will have a response to your numerous comments soon. As for your comment about "straying away" from policy, well, you will need to provide some arguments to support that assertion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Discussion about Improvements to this Article 

message: I have raised a concern about  a possible conflict of interest of  at User talk:Tgubler.
As for your comments above, there is no need to copy entire pieces of the article, as it is difficult to follow. I will  address your comments in the next few days. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have read the Wiki guidelines on Conflict of Interest but cannot see their applicability to this article. You have been the major editor on this article and it has strayed very, very far from Wikipedia biographies of living persons policies. However as those policies are quite straightforward I am sure we will work together admirably and bring it back in line with Wikipedia policies. Tgubler 21:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article has been edited by a myriad of editors over more than two and a half years. Yes, I have provided many of the scolartly sources (together with User:Andries and others), but it is the result of extensive collaboration. The applicability of WP:COI is clearly explained in your talk page. I would prefer to keep it there, and use this talk page to discuss the article. I will have a response to your numerous comments soon. As for your comment about "straying away" from policy, well, you will need to provide some arguments to support that assertion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict of interest of TGubler

message: ===Point (1)===
In order to avoid confusion, I suggest we go through these suggested edits, one at a time. We've started with (1) and we should finish that to everyone's satisfaction before going to (17) . I have suggested "He has, since the age of four, been addressing people on the subject of finding peace within and says that he is able to offer a practical way to do so".Momento 19:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A compromise version could be: "He has, since the age of four, been addressing people on the subject of finding peace within and says that he is able to offer a practical way to do so" ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I like that.Momento 19:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I cannot concur. Firstly there is nothing in the Wiki policies that talks about editors compromising. The question is what has Prem Rawat been talking about or "offering" to people in his public speeches since he was 4 years old. We should check the most reliable and verifiable sources to discover this and we will find that his use of the term "peace within" is a relaitively late one. I have just printed out a copy of your reply to my discussion post. I do not have extensive free time but will return to this discussion within 24 hours once I have digested your views. I do not think discussing one point at a time is adequate and during the interim period I believe the article should be marked as controversial and with it's NPOV under dispute. I understand that jossi only became a "student" of Prem Rawat in the 1980's and has no personal knowledge of Prem Rawat's teachings in his incarnation of "Guru Maharaj Ji" in the 1970's. Is this correct? Momento, are you a "student" of Prem Rawat's? If so could you give a brief outline of this association so I have some understanding of your personal knowledge of his teachings? Tgubler 22:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mistaken or mislead, Tgubler. Read Wikipedia:Consensus to learn about how articles are edited. Wikipedia is not about describing our "personal experiences", so your point is moot. That is better left for a blog or a personal page. In Wikipedia we describe the different viewpoints published by reliable sources, and that is what we have done so far. I would appreciate that you take your time to learn how this project works. As for your suggestion to be marked NPOV, that is not acceptable. If you have any 'specific concerns besides those that you have made already, then state them. Otherwise, allow the discussion to proceed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that you are mistaking 'consensus' for 'compromise'. Is English your first language? If it not, that could explain a lot. We agree entirely that Wikipedia is definitely not about our personal experiences. However our personal experiences can explain much about our biases, unconscious or otherwise and our background knowledge, shared or not. I am trying to understand your background knowledge better so that our work together can be smoother and the article can be as good as possible. There are many scholarly treatments of Prem Rawat's teaching in the 1970's, flawed though some of them are. Unfortunately as Prem Rawat disappeared from public view in the 1980's there will be a dearth of well sourced information available about him from then on. We should also keep in mind the relative unimportance of Prem Rawat in the modern world. While this doesn't mean the article should be treated lightly, students of Rawat should not expect it to treat him with undue deference. Tgubler 01:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: English has been my first language for the last 18 years, so there is no issue here. Students of Prem Rawat should not expect this article to treat him with deference, and active detractors of Prem Rawat should not expect that this article reflects their antagonism or lack of deference either. I have advised you not to bring personal aspects to this article, for reasons you are well aware of, and hoped you get the hint.  Let's focus on the article. Discuss the edit, not the editor. Discuss the article, not the subject. A pressing from your side to address the personal aspects of editors involved, is not a good idea, given your circumstances. Let's put all that aside and work through the list of your comments and replies point-by-point. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The most extensive treatment that I have about Rawat's teachings is by Kranenborg, unfortunately in Dutch language. According to Kranenborg, Rawat talked about "truth", "eternal peace", the "danger of the mind", the importance of the guru i.e. Maharaji himself and his grace, surrender to the guru, and "knowledge". A theme in his speeches according to Kranenborg is also "energy". Andries 22:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are about 40 scholarly sources that we are citing. Using one specific POV is not what NPOV is about. Kranenborg can nbe cited alongside all other scholars. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement that he spoke about "peace within" is sourced to nothing and nobody, so relying on Kranenborg is an improvement. Andries 05:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One at a time

message: In order to avoid confusion, I suggest we go through these suggested edits, one at a time. We've started with (1) and we should finish that to everyone's satisfaction before going to (17) . I have suggested "He has, since the age of four, been addressing people on the subject of finding peace within and says that he is able to offer a practical way to do so".Momento 19:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A compromise version could be: "He has, since the age of four, been addressing people on the subject of finding peace within and says that he is able to offer a practical way to do so" ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I like that.Momento 19:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I cannot concur. Firstly there is nothing in the Wiki policies that talks about editors compromising. The question is what has Prem Rawat been talking about or "offering" to people in his public speeches since he was 4 years old. We should check the most reliable and verifiable sources to discover this and we will find that his use of the term "peace within" is a relaitively late one. I have just printed out a copy of your reply to my discussion post. I do not have extensive free time but will return to this discussion within 24 hours once I have digested your views. I do not think discussing one point at a time is adequate and during the interim period I believe the article should be marked as controversial and with it's NPOV under dispute. I understand that jossi only became a "student" of Prem Rawat in the 1980's and has no personal knowledge of Prem Rawat's teachings in his incarnation of "Guru Maharaj Ji" in the 1970's. Is this correct? Momento, are you a "student" of Prem Rawat's? If so could you give a brief outline of this association so I have some understanding of your personal knowledge of his teachings? Tgubler 22:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mistaken or mislead, Tgubler. Read Wikipedia:Consensus to learn about how articles are edited. Wikipedia is not about describing our "personal experiences", so your point is moot. That is better left for a blog or a personal page. In Wikipedia we describe the different viewpoints published by reliable sources, and that is what we have done so far. I would appreciate that you take your time to learn how this project works. As for your suggestion to be marked NPOV, that is not acceptable. If you have any 'specific concerns besides those that you have made already, then state them. Otherwise, allow the discussion to proceed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that you are mistaking 'consensus' for 'compromise'. Is English your first language? If it not, that could explain a lot. We agree entirely that Wikipedia is definitely not about our personal experiences. However our personal experiences can explain much about our biases, unconscious or otherwise and our background knowledge, shared or not. I am trying to understand your background knowledge better so that our work together can be smoother and the article can be as good as possible. There are many scholarly treatments of Prem Rawat's teaching in the 1970's, flawed though some of them are. Unfortunately as Prem Rawat disappeared from public view in the 1980's there will be a dearth of well sourced information available about him from then on. We should also keep in mind the relative unimportance of Prem Rawat in the modern world. While this doesn't mean the article should be treated lightly, students of Rawat should not expect it to treat him with undue deference. Tgubler 01:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: English has been my first language for the last 18 years, so there is no issue here. Students of Prem Rawat should not expect this article to treat him with deference, and active detractors of Prem Rawat should not expect that this article reflects their antagonism or lack of deference either. I have advised you not to bring personal aspects to this article, for reasons you are well aware of, and hoped you get the hint.  Let's focus on the article. Discuss the edit, not the editor. Discuss the article, not the subject. A pressing from your side to address the personal aspects of editors involved, is not a good idea, given your circumstances. Let's put all that aside and work through the list of your comments and replies point-by-point. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The most extensive treatment that I have about Rawat's teachings is by Kranenborg, unfortunately in Dutch language. According to Kranenborg, Rawat talked about "truth", "eternal peace", the "danger of the mind", the importance of the guru i.e. Maharaji himself and his grace, surrender to the guru, and "knowledge". A theme in his speeches according to Kranenborg is also "energy". Andries 22:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are about 40 scholarly sources that we are citing. Using one specific POV is not what NPOV is about. Kranenborg can nbe cited alongside all other scholars. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement that he spoke about "peace within" is sourced to nothing and nobody, so relying on Kranenborg is an improvement. Andries 05:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Point (1)

message: I would also appreciate if Andries can refrain editing the article while we are engaging in discussions here. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? My edits were unrelated to the points discussed. Andries 19:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Your choice, Andries. I would argue that it is related. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I totally agree with Jossi. Four editors are discussing Tom's "improvements to the article", and working together to improve it. It is not the time for one editor to be making undiscussed edits. And particularly inserting edits that make this excessively long article even longer. I have removed Andries's edit.Momento 19:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So that is your only reason, making this article longer? What I added was not redundant, but completely new and clearly has added value. I will re-insert it. Andries 19:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not edit war. What is the rush? Once we go through these comments, you can resume editing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussions about this article tend to be very, very long and enduring. Andries 19:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do not have the patience to discuss and build consensus on how to improve the article, you may consider refraining from participating. ≈ jossi ≈ t •Special:Emailuser/Jossi|@]] 19:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will discuss the points made by TGubler and you, but in the meantime I have the right to improve the article in other respects. Andries 20:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The reason I removed it because it was "undiscussed". Tom, Jossi and I have been polite enough to discuss edits before making them, you should do the same. Momento 19:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not have to discuss new additions first if they are sourced to a reputable source. This edit was never disputed or discussed in any of the archives. There is no such guideline or policy that I first have discuss new undisputed additions.  Andries 19:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, it is your choice. I am only asking that you refrain from making changes to the article while three editors are making efforts to reach consensus on more than 20 points raised. Your choice, Andries. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am not going to fulfill this request because reaching consensus on twenty points on a controversial subject between editors who have highly divergent viewpoints may take ages or may even be impossible. Andries 22:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I am new to Wiki and have very little experience of it. How do I find out what the edits of Andries' are? I see no reason why Andries should not continue editing while our discussions continue, discussion that I hope Andries partakes of. I have put my views on the article up for discussion as I am a new eidtor and believe wholesale changes are required. Surely long term editors can go on improving the article as long as the changes are within Wiki guidelines of verifiablity from reputable sources. Tgubler 22:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  TGubler, You can check the history of the Prem Rawat article or you can check Andries user contributions Andries 22:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Wolesale changes" will be implemented only if consensus is reached on these. If it takes time, so be it. Patience is required. If Andries wants to continue editing, it is his choice. I just find his timing it "peculiar". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request moratorium in editing article

message: Some of the points I raised and jossi responded to are quite complex and it is much easier criticisng errors than replacing them with better information.  To begin with I'd like to discuss more specific queries which jossi has sensibly numbered.
(4) Firstly: AP and UP were the premiere news services on the planet. It doesn't matter that at the moment we have articles by them as printed in regionsla newspapers. This has to do with the ongoing publishing of these articles on the internet and my discovering of these and I already have recovered some articles from the Times of London and other respected individual newspapers. I have a quote from the respected doyen of Religious Dictionary authors, J. Gordon Melton, who uses the word 'ridicule' to describe media responses to Prem Rawat's arrivalin the West. There are numerous available articles from magazines that ridicule him but the best source would be the extensive research of Stephen A. Kent into the alternative press' attitude to Prem Rawat. We can hardly describe the overwhelming press response to Prem Rawat through his arrival in the West and the hardening of criticism towards him through the 1970's as "advocacy journalism". Prem Rawat's importance in the press was too little to justify that term.
(6) Interesting point. Maybe we can contact some of the living critics and religious scholars and see if they still hold those views. However as these beliefs about his personal divinity are quite astonishing and were publicised widely in Divine Light Mission media and reported widely in the press and academic sources of the time an NPOV article should just baldly state that he made claims of personal divinity and received much criticism therefore. If 20 years later Elan Vital claims otherwise this should be mentioned in passing but should not carry enough weight to alter the main text.
(7) You should study the newspaper reports of the Darby McLean case in the British Columbia Supreme Court. Evidence was given by Michael Garson and accepted by the judge who prevented any of her inheritance being given or loaned to DLM. He also stated that evidence showed that 60% of DLM's receipts were going directly to maintain Prem Rawat in luxury.
(8) Clearly there was no expectation that one of the sons would become the next Perfect Master. Prem Rawat and DLM often stated that Prem Rawat's position is one of self-existent incarnation and not of inheritance. Did Jesus Christ's son inherit his position, Buddha's, Sri Swarupanand's? Of course not. Prem Rawat has often claimed to be the unique person alive on the planet in the tradition of the Masters who is able to reveal the "Knowledge" and inspire the devotees or "students". This is not an inherited position.
(9) The source you are giving is an elanvital FAQ of 2006. I have no problem with using that terminology when discussing his present career and specifically stating the source. I am unsure that if we allow Elan Vital to speak for itself we shouldn't also be having rejoinders from critics in the text for NPOV?
(11) Yes a transcript of that speech would be interesting but without it we may have to remove that section. However when you write "But Prem Rawat has always offered a way to find peace within" this is begging the question. You may write "Prem Rawat claims that he has always offered a way to find peace within" or "Prem Rawat's followers claim that he has always offered a way to find peace within" but there would be no controversy about Prem Rawat if there was general agreement that he could do such a thing.
(12) At last something simple we will all be able to agree upon.
(13) I see. I may come back to this later. To begin with a simple link to the DLM article section about Millenium will be adequate.
(14) Of course I have the sources, there are newspaper articles quoting Joe Anctil the DLM spokesman, I will retrieve them.
(15) There are numerous newspaper (and magazine?) articles quoting her.
Unfortuantely I am not well and this is all I can contribute for the moment. Thank You Tgubler 02:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also coming down with something and may not be able to respond for a few days. Others can continue with the discussion. Take it easy. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I am in agreement with (8) so unless there are any objections we should remove that sentence. As for the sources you mention, when you feeel better, please provide the title of these books and page numbers so that these can be verified. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. Can we (Tom,Jossi,Andries & Momento) also agree on (1) as suggested by Jossi? Momento 19:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that leaving the lead until last is a good idea as long as the article is marked Neutrality under dispute Tgubler 20:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  You said you weren't well and would need a couple of days away. Is this still correct? Good point about the lead but during this possibly quite lengthy process of reaching consensus the article should be marked as disputed neutrality Tgubler 20:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feeling better ths morning. Thank you for asking. I see that you feel better as well. No, I do not think that it needs a disputed tag. Your comments can be addressed switfly, if editors accept the proposed process. Let's roll our sleeves and address your concerns one at the time. Which one would you suggest to start with? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  However I do believe it needs a disputed tag and it seems that must be something that does not require a consensus to be implemented. I will insert a disputed NPOV tag unless you can provide a very compelling reason why not. Unfortunately I am not much better and can not spend much time today on this article. Tgubler 21:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have asked several times to chose one of the points to start the discussion, but no answer is forthcoming. The compelling reason is that you have made a long list of points, that have been responded to in detail and you have yet to agree on a process to resolve the issues you have raised. Many of your points do not list sources, just refer vaguely to them, so editors do no have the means to verify them. A show of good faith would be to indicate that you are interested in resolving the issues raised, not to assert the need for a dispute tag. All editors here seem very keen in improving the article and address your concerns. so let's get started. The ball is in your court. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have asked several times but within a very short time frame and I do not have the time and energy to devote to this article that you do. Please be a little more patient with me. I will not put up a dispute tag until I am able devote enough time to the article. Tgubler 23:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Take all the time you need. But being ready to edit does not mean that a tag is warranted, for the reasons provided. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to say again that this article is too long. Could we please concentrate our efforts and edits on removing inaccuracies rather than inserting more info. This article became over 90 kilobytes as a result of editors adding bits that supported their POV which usually prompted other editors to add bits that rebutted them. A recent example being this addition (in bold) - By the early 1970s, DLM was operating in South America, North America, Europe, and Australia and had established ashrams, whose members were required to take a vow of poverty, chastity, and obedience.[34][35][36] In 1972 Time magazine reported that Rawat suggested "a stringent life-style for his devotees, devoid of drugs, sex, tobacco and alcohol." [37]
 The first sentence already adequately explains the ashram requirements, the second sentence adds nothing new except an error,  it is misleading because the requirement was only for the ashram. Do I have to add another quote that clears up Time magazine's error or can I just delete it? The answer is I am not going to waste time rebutting additional material.  Momento 19:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Momento can you explain what you consider an error in the second sentence? And what sources you have to verify it is an "error"? Tgubler 20:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because PR didn't suggest "a stringent life-style for his devotees, devoid of drugs, sex, tobacco and alcohol". That was only for people living in the ashram.Momento 22:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This brings up an interesting point. Anyone familiar with the situation knows that PR never made "a stringent life-style for his devotees, devoid of drugs, sex, tobacco and alcohol" a condition for receiving Knowledge but that is what the Time magazine article claims. Do we as editors, inlcude material we know is false because it comes from a reliable source or do we omit stuff we know is false even though it comes from a reputable source.Momento 23:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But on what evidence are you basing this claim of error? Whose familiarity? Is this just your personal recollection? Were you a "premie" in the 1970's? I find no record of Prem Rawat or officers of DLM informing Time magazine of any errors in the article. I don't think we should be concerned at the length of the article at this time. Just because Prem Rawat achieved only a brief notoriety and is leader of a very minor NRM doesn't mean it necessarily has to be a short article Tgubler 23:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The description of 70s & 80s Knowledge sessions on Ex-premie org websites makes no mention of abstaining from drugs, sex, tobacco and alcohol in order to receive Knowledge and every premie I have spoken to says it wasn't part of receiving Knowledge. The length of the article isn't dictated by the subject or my opinion but by Wiki's guidelines that, ideally, an article should be less than 54 kilbytes, this article is 65.Momento 02:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The optimal size of an article is unrelated to the subject. See Wikipedia:Article size ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In Wikipedia we report what is verifiable, not what is "true." If that magazinbe made a mistake, we can only produce additional information that provides a different viewpoint. There are many sources that describe the live in ashrams as distinct from the requirements to be taught the techniques of Knowledge. For example, the "Religious Requirements and Practices of Certain Selected Groups: A Handbook for Chaplains" (1983), U. S. Department of the Army, , reads: "PRACTICES AND BEHAVIORAL STANDARDS: There are no ethical practices in terms of rules and regulations. Members believe that involvement in satsang, service and meditation results in an inner code of conduct which guides behavior. The central practice is meditation. // DIETARY LAWS OR RESTRICTIONS: Most members are encouraged to be vegetarians, but this is a personal choice." ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having said that, if there are scholarly sources available that contradicts a newspaper or magazine article substantially, and these scholarly sources present a wide consensus about a subject, responsible editors may chose to include the best available sources and not include obviously mistaken ones. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If all (ex-)premies agree that the 1972 Time article was wrong then I do not object if it is removed. Please note that there is a time difference of 11 years between the Time article and the book Religious Requirements and Practices of Certain Selected Groups: A Handbook for Chaplains". Practices may have changed substantially in those 11 years. Andries 21:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Responsible editors would have to balance off the "scholarly source's" accuracy compared to the consensus opinion of verifiable sources about Prem Rawat especially in the light of tertiary sources often rehashing earlier tertiary sources in a sort of mobius strip of errors.Tgubler  21:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Responsible editors use the best sources available. Scholarly sources are more reliable that AP wires, for example. As for editors "balancing" anything, that is questionable as it is dangerously close to original research that clearly specifies that Articles may not contain [...] any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position. . ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'm happy to maintain some elbow room as long as you keep your inflammatory comments re "yellow journalism" and your opinions re "putting Mr Rawat into boxes" (whatever that means) out of the discussion. This article and discussion about it should not be written from the POV and using the in-group language of a minor and controversial NRM. Tgubler 20:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry? There is no problem in exposing our opinions in arguments (such as your opinion above.) Discussions in talk pages have some leeway in the way they are conducted. Go and check other articles such as Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid, and you will see what I mean. All that is asked is that we discuss the article, not the subject, and that we discuss the edits, not the editor, and that we maintain the necessary level of civility required. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: May I begin with simpler editing queries

message: Before I make a proposal for process, let me say this: please do not call me 'bro' or "wiki guru" or "my yoda" as you have done. A collegial atmosphere is a good thing, but that there are some lines we do not cross. Respect, in  my book, includes some elbow room, so keeping some distance will be appreciated. Also, it will be much better if if you keep to yourself assessments such as "you are beginning to sound petulant", as these are not useful and can easily escalate to personal attacks. Don't do it.
Having said that, I propose that to address your 20 points, we take one at a time (does not  have to be sequential, pick any one), and let's discuss. If the point is related to a specific source, please provide the name of the reference, author and page (if it is a book) or any other information that will allow other editors to check these sources.
It may seem tedious, and slow, but that is the way it works sometimes. In any case, my assessment of your points is that we can go trough them quite swiftly, and incorporate any good material that is missing, remove material about which there is consensus, etc.
I would also suggest to leave the article lead as the last point to discuss, as lead of articles are a supposed to be a concise summary of the article. Let us collaborate in improving the article, and when we are satisified with the article contents  I am sure a good lead will emerge quite easily. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You said you weren't well and would need a couple of days away. Is this still correct? Good point about the lead but during this possibly quite lengthy process of reaching consensus the article should be marked as disputed neutrality Tgubler 20:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feeling better ths morning. Thank you for asking. I see that you feel better as well. No, I do not think that it needs a disputed tag. Your comments can be addressed switfly, if editors accept the proposed process. Let's roll our sleeves and address your concerns one at the time. Which one would you suggest to start with? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  However I do believe it needs a disputed tag and it seems that must be something that does not require a consensus to be implemented. I will insert a disputed NPOV tag unless you can provide a very compelling reason why not. Unfortunately I am not much better and can not spend much time today on this article. Tgubler 21:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have asked several times to chose one of the points to start the discussion, but no answer is forthcoming. The compelling reason is that you have made a long list of points, that have been responded to in detail and you have yet to agree on a process to resolve the issues you have raised. Many of your points do not list sources, just refer vaguely to them, so editors do no have the means to verify them. A show of good faith would be to indicate that you are interested in resolving the issues raised, not to assert the need for a dispute tag. All editors here seem very keen in improving the article and address your concerns. so let's get started. The ball is in your court. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have asked several times but within a very short time frame and I do not have the time and energy to devote to this article that you do. Please be a little more patient with me. I will not put up a dispute tag until I am able devote enough time to the article. Tgubler 23:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Take all the time you need. But being ready to edit does not mean that a tag is warranted, for the reasons provided. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to say again that this article is too long. Could we please concentrate our efforts and edits on removing inaccuracies rather than inserting more info. This article became over 90 kilobytes as a result of editors adding bits that supported their POV which usually prompted other editors to add bits that rebutted them. A recent example being this addition (in bold) - By the early 1970s, DLM was operating in South America, North America, Europe, and Australia and had established ashrams, whose members were required to take a vow of poverty, chastity, and obedience.[34][35][36] In 1972 Time magazine reported that Rawat suggested "a stringent life-style for his devotees, devoid of drugs, sex, tobacco and alcohol." [37]
 The first sentence already adequately explains the ashram requirements, the second sentence adds nothing new except an error,  it is misleading because the requirement was only for the ashram. Do I have to add another quote that clears up Time magazine's error or can I just delete it? The answer is I am not going to waste time rebutting additional material.  Momento 19:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Momento can you explain what you consider an error in the second sentence? And what sources you have to verify it is an "error"? Tgubler 20:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because PR didn't suggest "a stringent life-style for his devotees, devoid of drugs, sex, tobacco and alcohol". That was only for people living in the ashram.Momento 22:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This brings up an interesting point. Anyone familiar with the situation knows that PR never made "a stringent life-style for his devotees, devoid of drugs, sex, tobacco and alcohol" a condition for receiving Knowledge but that is what the Time magazine article claims. Do we as editors, inlcude material we know is false because it comes from a reliable source or do we omit stuff we know is false even though it comes from a reputable source.Momento 23:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But on what evidence are you basing this claim of error? Whose familiarity? Is this just your personal recollection? Were you a "premie" in the 1970's? I find no record of Prem Rawat or officers of DLM informing Time magazine of any errors in the article. I don't think we should be concerned at the length of the article at this time. Just because Prem Rawat achieved only a brief notoriety and is leader of a very minor NRM doesn't mean it necessarily has to be a short article Tgubler 23:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The description of 70s & 80s Knowledge sessions on Ex-premie org websites makes no mention of abstaining from drugs, sex, tobacco and alcohol in order to receive Knowledge and every premie I have spoken to says it wasn't part of receiving Knowledge. The length of the article isn't dictated by the subject or my opinion but by Wiki's guidelines that, ideally, an article should be less than 54 kilbytes, this article is 65.Momento 02:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The optimal size of an article is unrelated to the subject. See Wikipedia:Article size ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In Wikipedia we report what is verifiable, not what is "true." If that magazinbe made a mistake, we can only produce additional information that provides a different viewpoint. There are many sources that describe the live in ashrams as distinct from the requirements to be taught the techniques of Knowledge. For example, the "Religious Requirements and Practices of Certain Selected Groups: A Handbook for Chaplains" (1983), U. S. Department of the Army, , reads: "PRACTICES AND BEHAVIORAL STANDARDS: There are no ethical practices in terms of rules and regulations. Members believe that involvement in satsang, service and meditation results in an inner code of conduct which guides behavior. The central practice is meditation. // DIETARY LAWS OR RESTRICTIONS: Most members are encouraged to be vegetarians, but this is a personal choice." ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having said that, if there are scholarly sources available that contradicts a newspaper or magazine article substantially, and these scholarly sources present a wide consensus about a subject, responsible editors may chose to include the best available sources and not include obviously mistaken ones. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If all (ex-)premies agree that the 1972 Time article was wrong then I do not object if it is removed. Please note that there is a time difference of 11 years between the Time article and the book Religious Requirements and Practices of Certain Selected Groups: A Handbook for Chaplains". Practices may have changed substantially in those 11 years. Andries 21:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Responsible editors would have to balance off the "scholarly source's" accuracy compared to the consensus opinion of verifiable sources about Prem Rawat especially in the light of tertiary sources often rehashing earlier tertiary sources in a sort of mobius strip of errors.Tgubler  21:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Responsible editors use the best sources available. Scholarly sources are more reliable that AP wires, for example. As for editors "balancing" anything, that is questionable as it is dangerously close to original research that clearly specifies that Articles may not contain [...] any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position. . ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'm happy to maintain some elbow room as long as you keep your inflammatory comments re "yellow journalism" and your opinions re "putting Mr Rawat into boxes" (whatever that means) out of the discussion. This article and discussion about it should not be written from the POV and using the in-group language of a minor and controversial NRM. Tgubler 20:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry? There is no problem in exposing our opinions in arguments (such as your opinion above.) Discussions in talk pages have some leeway in the way they are conducted. Go and check other articles such as Talk:Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid, and you will see what I mean. All that is asked is that we discuss the article, not the subject, and that we discuss the edits, not the editor, and that we maintain the necessary level of civility required. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Process 

message: Any of you serious editors interested in a pdf-copy of Maharaji's Interview in the leading German magazine "Der Spiegel" Oct. 73? It is a very good example of how media dealt with him at that time, and I think, it is the last interview he gave to any public media for a very long time. The interviewers behaved so silly and arrogant that Maharaji (only fifteen) had to reprove them for their lack of seriosity. There was a notion afterward, that this interview triggered his reluctance with the press for decades to come. 
At least there is a clear statement from him, that an ascetic lifestyle was only requested from ashram-inhabitants. And, when asked who or what he is, he calls himself "a humble servant of God". Unfortunately for a scholar, from the interview you seem to learn a lot more about Der Spiegel than about Maharaji.--Rainer P. 18:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Rainer, I'd love to have a copy. While my German is at the three year level I'm sure I can get it translated accurately. That notion re the Spiegel interview is probably not correct in itself. There was a very embarassing scene at Millenium '73 with angry journalists at the press conference and from that time journalists began to move from viewing him as an object of fun and in 1974 began much more serious criticism re his use of DLM finances and the Pat Halley hammer attack and then his mother disowned him and etc, etc. Do you have it scanned? Tgubler 20:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rainer is German, and his English ain't bad, so he may want to translate it for us. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your kind offer. My email address is tgubler[at]tpg.com.au Tgubler 00:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interview in "Der Spiegel" Oct. 73